Serious Q's To Trump Supporters (or those on the fence for Trump)

[JJ Husker]

 

 

"Pro life" is nice branding. It is, in reality "Anti-abortion."The pro-life movement isn't about teaching safe sex, or promoting more family leave and family resources, or providing free contraceptives and so on. It is strictly about restricting, or rendering illegal, abortion.There's a lot of room for unity in the "for life" area, across both aisles of thought on government restrictions. I can't tell or convince someone who has their personal convictions to become pro-choice, but hopefully, I can point out the important areas where we can work together towards promoting a common good.

 

This is so wrong I don't have the words. All this shows is your complete lack of understanding about Pro life.

While I'm sure there are those who are simply anti-abortion, the heart of the efforts involves all of the things you just flatly denied. The Catholic churchs I regularly go to are constantly asking for donations and volunteers for the Pregnancy Resource center, aid for unwed mothers, teen sex education, etc. Most reasonable people realize there is more involved than just being anti-abortion. Seems we always have a baby bottle in our house to collect our change for the Pregnancy Resource center. I do disagree with the church on the use of contraceptives and wish they would change their stance on that. But you need to quit spreading falsehoods about a movement that you apparently have little knowledge of.

 

You're using only anecdotal evidence, although zoogs hasn't used any yet. My anecdotal evidence is any time I hear about people being against sex education it's from Christians who say it's as easy as telling kids "don't have sex," which is a completely unreasonable solution. It's also Christians who are generally against letting gays adopt kids, which might help with the situation. For the record I'm Christian and pro-life but I disagree with the Republican platform about every other thing related to sex and pregnancy and poverty and children.

How is pointing out that many Pro life people, groups and churchs do much more than simply being against abortion only providing anecdotal evidence? Nobody has to settle for only my word on it. It's a fact and can be verified.

 

I agree that many Christians don't consider the surrounding issues and only offer up simplistic half solutions like "just abstain" or "outlaw abortion" but it is false to flat out claim that Pro life does not do more than that.

[zoogs]

JJ, I don't argue with the "heart" of the movement. Actually, that's the entire point of my appeal -- that there's a "heart" of common ground.

 

However, let's take care not to mix up our personal feelings about abortion with the two legal advocacy movements that are competing here.

 

As a political cause, one movement -- which calls itself pro-life -- is explicitly about erecting barriers to abortion wherever they can. Their ultimate goal is to make it illegal again, full stop. I don't think there's even an argument there. The proof is in the policy efforts.

 

But that is absolutely not to say anything about the heart, or the priorities, of someone who doesn't like abortion.

[Danny Bateman]

Zoogs is simply trying to separate the feelings and beliefs of those who themselves are pro-life and those who try to advance policy and legislation to direct the political arm of that movement. I think that's fair. I share his disdain for the policy end of things. I would describe myself as a pro-choice person who would seek the aid of adoption services if I was a part of an unwanted pregnancy.

 

I was happy to see the Supreme Court vote 5-3 to overturn Texas's abortion law earlier this year. This may be viewed as an enraging defeat by pro-lifers, but I was personally very glad Kennedy broke ranks to join the majority. If it would've wound up in a 4-4 tie due to an empty seat, someone with my sensibilities would've been seething at a Congress that continues to sit on their hands while that seat remains open.

 

Though under the guise of protecting women, I read that law as explicitly trying to deny them medical services.

 

 

national sentiment towards law enforcement.

One thing I hope becomes more clear is that BLM isn't anti-law enforcement. The problem is with us, all of us, not a scant minority of racist cops. We bear responsibility as a nation for this situation, and we can go back to the "drug" war used to incarcerate blacks and hippies, and the whole broken windows, superpredators stuff that any reasonable politician has seen the error of their ways with.

snip

 

I want to make a few points here. First, when we refer to a recognized population, we should use the proper capitalized title i.e. Blacks. Second, the responsibility begins LONG before the "drug war" and the precipitous decline of the standard of living of the Black population can directly be traced back to the Great Society initiatives. If you look at unemployment rates, divorce rates, general standard of living indicators, etc. this is the time period that saw all progress being made by Blacks in America begin to be snuffed out due to irresponsible and possibly intentional activities by elected federal officials.

 

 

While this may be true, is it any reason to ignore the fact that the war on drugs had a very negative, disproportionate effect on the Black community?

 

I also don't understand how taking a president that is openly siding with one side very clearly over the other is going to make the situation improve. Trump has said nothing of trying to improve on what the Black community views as an institutional problem. He just says "The Democrats don't support the police; I'm the law and order candidate, I support them."

While I agree strongly that we need to revere and appreciate our police for their service, he doesn't even offer lip service to the other side. Look, police are not infallible. Neither are the citizens they patrol and keep secure. Both sides have flaws that become apparent at times. Our goal should be to bring both sides together and work on a collaborative solution such that both sides feel supported and respected.

I don't believe he will do that. I think he will support the police, because that's the natural thing for a Republican to do and an easy voting bloc for him. I know people say Obama or Clinton hate the police. I strongly feel that's not true. I think either of them stand a much better chance of trying to bring both sides together to work together to improve things for all instead of just choosing sides. And lastly, I don't believe listening to one side means your disrespecting the other. I think one's actions and ideas should bear out who they are truly supporting.

 

I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers with this post. I fully understand + respect how BRI or any other LEO could support someone like Trump who's been much more vocally supportive of them.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

"Pro life" is nice branding. It is, in reality "Anti-abortion."The pro-life movement isn't about teaching safe sex, or promoting more family leave and family resources, or providing free contraceptives and so on. It is strictly about restricting, or rendering illegal, abortion.There's a lot of room for unity in the "for life" area, across both aisles of thought on government restrictions. I can't tell or convince someone who has their personal convictions to become pro-choice, but hopefully, I can point out the important areas where we can work together towards promoting a common good.

This is so wrong I don't have the words. All this shows is your complete lack of understanding about Pro life.

While I'm sure there are those who are simply anti-abortion, the heart of the efforts involves all of the things you just flatly denied. The Catholic churchs I regularly go to are constantly asking for donations and volunteers for the Pregnancy Resource center, aid for unwed mothers, teen sex education, etc. Most reasonable people realize there is more involved than just being anti-abortion. Seems we always have a baby bottle in our house to collect our change for the Pregnancy Resource center. I do disagree with the church on the use of contraceptives and wish they would change their stance on that. But you need to quit spreading falsehoods about a movement that you apparently have little knowledge of.

 

You're using only anecdotal evidence, although zoogs hasn't used any yet. My anecdotal evidence is any time I hear about people being against sex education it's from Christians who say it's as easy as telling kids "don't have sex," which is a completely unreasonable solution. It's also Christians who are generally against letting gays adopt kids, which might help with the situation. For the record I'm Christian and pro-life but I disagree with the Republican platform about every other thing related to sex and pregnancy and poverty and children.

How is pointing out that many Pro life people, groups and churchs do much more than simply being against abortion only providing anecdotal evidence? Nobody has to settle for only my word on it. It's a fact and can be verified.

 

I agree that many Christians don't consider the surrounding issues and only offer up simplistic half solutions like "just abstain" or "outlaw abortion" but it is false to flat out claim that Pro life does not do more than that.

 

 

 

It's exactly the definition of anecdotal evidence. In order to prove him wrong, assuming he's right, is to show that on average, he's wrong. Saying "some people are doing it the right way" doesn't show that on the average they're doing it the right way. He never made the claim that all pro life people are like this.

 

It's basically like saying "The people I know named Tim are smart, therefore Tims are smart on in general." You don't have enough evidence there. You have your own personal experience.

 

Saying "many Pro life people, groups and churchs" do it only proves him wrong if he's saying none do.

[Creighton Duke]

Zoogs is simply trying to separate the feelings and beliefs of those who themselves are pro-life and those who try to advance policy and legislation to direct the political arm of that movement. I think that's fair. I share his disdain for the policy end of things. I would describe myself as a pro-choice person who would seek the aid of adoption services if I was a part of an unwanted pregnancy.

 

I was happy to see the Supreme Court vote 5-3 to overturn Texas's abortion law earlier this year. This may be viewed as an enraging defeat by pro-lifers, but I was personally very glad Kennedy broke ranks to join the majority. If it would've wound up in a 4-4 tie due to an empty seat, someone with my sensibilities would've been seething at a Congress that continues to sit on their hands while that seat remains open.

 

Though under the guise of protecting women, I read that law as explicitly trying to deny them medical services.

 

 

national sentiment towards law enforcement.

One thing I hope becomes more clear is that BLM isn't anti-law enforcement. The problem is with us, all of us, not a scant minority of racist cops. We bear responsibility as a nation for this situation, and we can go back to the "drug" war used to incarcerate blacks and hippies, and the whole broken windows, superpredators stuff that any reasonable politician has seen the error of their ways with.

 

snip

 

I want to make a few points here. First, when we refer to a recognized population, we should use the proper capitalized title i.e. Blacks. Second, the responsibility begins LONG before the "drug war" and the precipitous decline of the standard of living of the Black population can directly be traced back to the Great Society initiatives. If you look at unemployment rates, divorce rates, general standard of living indicators, etc. this is the time period that saw all progress being made by Blacks in America begin to be snuffed out due to irresponsible and possibly intentional activities by elected federal officials.

 

 

While this may be true, is it any reason to ignore the fact that the war on drugs had a very negative, disproportionate effect on the Black community?

 

I also don't understand how taking a president that is openly siding with one side very clearly over the other is going to make the situation improve. Trump has said nothing of trying to improve on what the Black community views as an institutional problem. He just says "The Democrats don't support the police; I'm the law and order candidate, I support them."

 

While I agree strongly that we need to revere and appreciate our police for their service, he doesn't even offer lip service to the other side. Look, police are not infallible. Neither are the citizens they patrol and keep secure. Both sides have flaws that become apparent at times. Our goal should be to bring both sides together and work on a collaborative solution such that both sides feel supported and respected.

 

I don't believe he will do that. I think he will support the police, because that's the natural thing for a Republican to do and an easy voting bloc for him. I know people say Obama or Clinton hate the police. I strongly feel that's not true. I think either of them stand a much better chance of trying to bring both sides together to work together to improve things for all instead of just choosing sides. And lastly, I don't believe listening to one side means your disrespecting the other. I think one's actions and ideas should bear out who they are truly supporting.

 

I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers with this post. I fully understand + respect how BRI or any other LEO could support someone like Trump who's been much more vocally supportive of them.

Of course he has. One of the biggest problems facing the Black population in America is a lack of opportunity. Many of these opportunities have been flooded by the presence of undocumented workers who are taking positions, and oftentimes at lower pay, that many native Blacks would be in the running for. By emphasizing and prioritizing American and legal immigrant workers, Trump will help create more opportunities for the Black population which will strengthen both the specific population as well as the nation as a whole!

[zoogs]

Of course it's the illegal immigrants again.

 

Sheer, dishonest nativism.

[Creighton Duke]

Of course it's the illegal immigrants again.

 

Sheer, dishonest nativism.

Explain this

 

 

These findings suggest that immigrants and native workers with low levels of education may be competing for different jobs and even could be complementing each other.

 

Why are native born Americans not capable of doing the same jobs as immigrant workers. It is a bit discriminatory and patronizing to assume otherwise.

[NM11046]

 

Thanks BRI - totally understand your points.

 

I get your concerns about national sentiment toward law enforcement, and that it probably wouldn't change with Hillary. Do you have concerns that it could possible get worse with Trump?

No, I don't have the same concerns because Trump has supported us through his campaign. Now, could the country spiral out of control with him at the helm? I suppose it could, but if you would've said to me 8 years ago we'd be having the issues we are having now in reference to the divide and racial issues in this country with our first African-American President at the helm I would've said you were nuts! We should be closer than ever, instead we've regressed 40 to 50 years.

 

I don't know that I'm going to say this as concisely as I wish, but here goes ...

 

There is no doubt that Trump has been very vocal on his support for military, police and etc. My concern lies in the animosity he spews to everyone else, and the tone that sets throughout the nation. Having someone as the leader of this country who makes consistent derogatory comments against race, gender, religion affiliation etc. creates an attitude and a tension with all americans. I can't see how that makes relations between law enforcement and community members better. At all.

[Moiraine]

 

Of course it's the illegal immigrants again.

 

Sheer, dishonest nativism.

Explain this

 

 

These findings suggest that immigrants and native workers with low levels of education may be competing for different jobs and even could be complementing each other.

 

Why are native born Americans not capable of doing the same jobs as immigrant workers. It is a bit discriminatory and patronizing to assume otherwise.

 

 

 

? It's not saying they're not capable. It's saying what the quote says... they're competing for different jobs.

[Creighton Duke]

 

 

Of course it's the illegal immigrants again.

 

Sheer, dishonest nativism.

Explain this

 

 

These findings suggest that immigrants and native workers with low levels of education may be competing for different jobs and even could be complementing each other.

 

Why are native born Americans not capable of doing the same jobs as immigrant workers. It is a bit discriminatory and patronizing to assume otherwise.

 

 

 

? It's not saying they're not capable. It's saying what the quote says... they're competing for different jobs.

 

Ok, why is this? Why competing for different jobs? Why not try for all jobs that they are capable of?

[Danny Bateman]

Is it possible that American citizens just don't pursue the same jobs that immigrants pursue?

There is a meat-packing plant in my hometown. Anecdotally, I don't know of many white denizens of my town who are rushing out to look for the opportunities there. It's hard, back-breaking work at weird hours. But I do know they employ scores and scores of Hispanics there. I don't know how many of them are citizens and how many of them are illegal immigrants, and I don't really care. What I know is that the vast majority of their manual labor workforce is of Hispanic descent.

 

I don't think that's anybody's fault. It's just a good, honest job with different hours and decent pay that's probably lacking in upward mobility. The odd hours an black of upward mobility may make the job very unattractive to a citizen but it may be the best an illegal immigrant could do.

 

I compare Whites to Hispanics only because Trump decidedly pulls the vast majority of his support from the white working class. They serve as a good control group.

I assume this is what they mean when they say they're competing for different jobs.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

Of course it's the illegal immigrants again.

 

Sheer, dishonest nativism.

Explain this

 

 

These findings suggest that immigrants and native workers with low levels of education may be competing for different jobs and even could be complementing each other.

 

Why are native born Americans not capable of doing the same jobs as immigrant workers. It is a bit discriminatory and patronizing to assume otherwise.

 

 

 

? It's not saying they're not capable. It's saying what the quote says... they're competing for different jobs.

 

Ok, why is this? Why competing for different jobs? Why not try for all jobs that they are capable of?

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure but I think you're reading this the wrong way, or I'm reading your posts the wrong way. It's not saying Americans without high school diplomas aren't trying for jobs they're capable of or that they're incapable of the jobs immigrants are doing. It's basically saying the opposite of that. Mexican immigrants are not capable of getting all of the jobs out there that their American counterparts can get. Like dudeguyy mentioned, they do things like work in meat packing plants, which most Americans (even those without a H.S. degree) aren't willing to do and probably don't need to do because they can get a different job that isn't in such a bad working environment.

 

Here's a quote from the article:

 

 

Immigration status can constrain a worker’s job choices, but many immigrants are working different jobs from natives because they have limited English language or technical skills, or because they have insufficient exposure to the US workplace.

 

 

Likewise it's probably hard for someone who lives in El Paso (80% Hispanic population) to get all types of jobs if he/she doesn't know Spanish. Of course that's a rare example in the U.S. and it's flipped around for immigrants/illegal immigrants. They can't compete for the same jobs if they don't know much English. They're willing to do the jobs Americans for the most part don't really need to do.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

I'm not saying get rid of national standards all together

If this is your stance, BRI, then that's explicitly the opposite of Trump's, isn't it? -- and it is Hillary's platform.

 

I don't know that she'll dismantle CC and come up with something new (in theory, that sounds like a different name kind of deal. In practice, you just see CC evolve over time). It seems like funhusker would have more to say about this; I'm a little out of my depth.

 

national sentiment towards law enforcement.

One thing I hope becomes more clear is that BLM isn't anti-law enforcement. The problem is with us, all of us, not a scant minority of racist cops. We bear responsibility as a nation for this situation, and we can go back to the "drug" war used to incarcerate blacks and hippies, and the whole broken windows, superpredators stuff that any reasonable politician has seen the error of their ways with.

 

The conservative outlet RedState pointed out that it's not outrageous for blacks to feel they live under an occupied state. I think that's well put. And the key word here is 'state', not "People of this occupation (police) in particular are racist." That's patently ridiculous.

 

So, let's examine then how this situation might improve. If you watched the debate, you saw Trump double, triple, and quadruple down on expanding Stop and Frisk -- an unconstitutional, discredited, and disproportionately minority-targeting practice that only someone who has *no idea* would be touting today.

 

And if you think that's going to improve this environment, then he has some excellent real estate classes to sell you.

 

I think back to Trump's words on Putin. "He says such nice things about me, and you want me to disavow?" He expects the same in reverse: turning around and saying these things to various groups (coal workers, minorities, policemen), whether or not he has the coherence or the policy to back up those words, and expecting their love in return just for that. Every other phrase out of his mouth is "...the best people." Don't believe the hype.

 

I understand what you're getting at with the national standards piece. My main problem lies with common core, how they created it, implemented it and where it's at now. He's spoke out against it, but I can see how leaving the states to decide what the standards are could be a problem based solely on inconsistencies from state to state as far as education is concerned. I'm assuming what will happen if he does get into office is, he'll find out we need national standards, realize there is a better program that can be created outside of common core, and go from there. The chances of it being on his radar if he does get into office above other things? Probably slim.....

 

Also, speaking of stop-and-frisk, you realize that the police can still do that everywhere EXCEPT basically New York correct? It's called a Terry Stop, not stop-and-frisk. So this isn't a new idea he's coming up with, it's just not called stop-and-frisk.

[Danny Bateman]

Forgive my ignorance, as I"m not well versed in the matted, but weren't states actually consulted to come in and help develop Common Core?

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Forgive my ignorance, as I"m not well versed in the matted, but weren't states actually consulted to come in and help develop Common Core?

Not based on what I've read. It wasn't even "tested" in the field to see how effective it was going to be and what the problems might be. To be fair, I'm not sure how you could do that on a large enough scale to get good results to go off of either, but then again I'm no teacher!