Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[/b]Liberals never practice what they preach. [b]They rant about the importance of diversity, not being racist and ensuring equality for women. But consider the field of potential candidates for the Democratic nomination. The dominant candidates are two white guys well in their late 70s and a white guy from Indiana.

The women, the Hispanic, the Asian and the African-American are almost non-starters.

Terms like never and always tend to squash rather than advance civil discourse. I wish you wouldn’t lead this way, esp as in this case, you are making a good point that for all the talk of diversity, the leading Presidential candidates on the D side are old white guys.

But you must allow that the emerging cadre of Dem leadership includes a range of races, creeds and colors, esp compared to the R side. Considering the projected demographic changes in the next 30 years, why aren’t Republicans cultivating diversity in their leadership?

So the field for Dem nominee includes all colors and creeds? So what? They are all running on far-leftist policies that would destroy the economy! Leftists need to stop looking at "not white" as the way to pick nominees. It's stupid identity politics - and it's racist.

What I am asking is - why aren’t Republicans doing more to cultivate leaders of color within their own ranks? If for no other reason that in the next 25 years, whites will be the minority. Why not begin to develop leadership among women as well? I am not talking about identity politics- that’s a throwaway defense. I am asking why, in the face of the changes coming in the demographics of America, Republicans are only focusing on their historic white base and not exploring development of support across Hispanics, AAs, etc.

I am not sure that anyone needs to cultivate leaders of a certain color. An organization that does that for the black and yellow people can use the same mechanism to do it for white people. Race and color of the skin are superficial features and should receive no consideration what so ever. This is *NOT* to say that we shouldn't cultivate leaders from different backgrounds and cultures so that they can bring their perspective. How similar is Kamala Harris' background and cultural experience from those of the average African American in urban environments, in the deep south, and etc. Not very similar. So why are we looking at Kamala Harris as if the color of her skin should give her some additional consideration for leadership?

Well the GOP plays white identity politics to the hilt and the “poorly educated”, poor, older white men almost always vote for a white man. What has a poor white man in Appalachia got to do with the conman billionaire from NYC? Nada. Zilch. Yet they identified with the liar-in-chief because he was one of them even though he had no life experience any where close to them.

Stop trolling. Trump never claimed to share the same experience as poor whites in Appalachia because he is also white. People from different backgrounds *CAN* share the same common vision, which is to put the interest of America first. It's different to share a common goal than to identify with someone based on the color of their skin.

I call BS on that. The liar, pussy grabber panders to the white supremacists all the time. He didn’t put America first by any means, that’s just his successful con job. He made enough of his cult members believe in his con. He gave tax cuts for the rich and tried very hard to take away Obamacare which helped them. He cut education budgets which helps the poor and middle class. There is no wall. Dreamers are still here. Obamacare is still here. China trade Deficits are at the highest ever, debt to gdp ratio is 100% , agriculture is suffering due to tariffs, no immigration fix, no new coal/ steel jobs and in fact many coal plants have shut down..... on and on...

If he is America first he should pass a bill with mandatory e-verify, that’s it. But he will never ever do that because he can’t recruit illegals in his properties. He is a fraud and his cult has fallen for his con job.

If all you are going to do is engage in nonstop trite and juvenile name calling, you'll just be ignored.

+1.

Let's ignore he or she who can't make an actual argument.

PP was making so many good points about the GOP and Trump that simply can't be wished away. There is a lot of truth about the GOP which has become a party for the rich and no one can defend Trump on his personality, behavior or integrity. The president is the standard bearer for the country and we should be ashamed that he represents us all. But Trump is good at PR and marketing, which he is using to maximum effect even though he has NO POLICY WINS other than the unpopular tax cuts.

See, you both live in the same little bubble and parrot the same talking points.

Meanwhile, to a good number of posters in this thread, and as much as we don't like Trump as a person, we see a more prosperous, safe and peaceful country around us, especially compared to the sh!tty years 2014-2016.

2020 is not about who's our Preacher-in-Chief. It's about President and Commander-in-Chief. And Trump's results have exceeded the expectations by this non-Trump voter.

Someone earlier in this thread compared Trump to a surgeon she knew -- abrasive, no bed-side manners...and yet the most competent in town, so everyone went to him.

That is not what the stat says. The GDP growth is still below 3%/year and has never touched the promised 4% after unpopular tax cuts for the rich.

The country isn't peaceful for the minorities who are getting harassed and threatened by the rise in hate crimes.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hate-harassment-incidents-spike-since-donald-trump-election/

A majority of Americans hate the liar who assaults all democratic institutions, wants to make America like his puppet master Putin. That surgeon is a bad example because trump isn't even competent and his staff don't even follow his orders.

Yeah sure, we know you are one of the cult members who is trying too hard to make dog poop shine but ain't gonna happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We should all support less imports from China.
China is the worst environmental disaster ever!

American consumers are the worst environmental disaster ever. No one put a gun to every American's head and asked them to keep buying "stuff", whether they can afford or not.

Ok, so let’s NOW reduce our made in China slave labor trade. Why not?

Better late than never....

Not gonna happen. We are addicted to buying things and our economy is driven by consumerism. If we stop buying our economy will collapse. So we are stuck in a cycle of consumption. Its like riding a tiger. If we stop, the tiger will consume us.

I often hear this line of argument but it strikes me as being irrational and detached from reality. Consumption is simply deriving incremental utility/enjoyment out of some good or service that you've purchased. Consuming is what gives value to the activities of an economic system. Every person consumes, some more than others, and in general there is a linear relationship between consumption and quality of life. It isn't somehow more virtuous to consume less. Every developing country in the world desires to consume more in order to improve the quality of life. Note that environmental conservation is also a type of consumption - people desire a better environment and work towards technologies which contribute to that goal, and there fore wind farms, solar energy, and etc.

There is nothing wrong with consumption in and of itself.

Consumption for our needs is one thing but consumption for our wants is what kills the earth. The resources are finite and if all 7 billion consumes like greedy Americans there won’t be much of anything left and the world will fail to address climate change.

But you discount the fact that our consumption gets more efficient with time - less waste, less energy, less manpower to produce one unit of consumption. And we’ve become incredibly adept at recycling previous units of consumption. We are more efficient at all points in the value chain.

-A liberal Democrat

What you say maybe true BUT the consumption increase is many multiple the efficiency of modern production. So it simply outstrips any efficiency gains.

That would be a great point, if true. But what we do see is that even as the US consumers consume more products and services, it takes *LESS* energy to supply those products and services:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julian_Morris3/publication/324064513/figure/fig6/AS:667795524165642@1536226268658/US-ENERGY-CONSUMPTION-AND-CO2-EMISSIONS-PER-UNIT-OF-GDP.png


And as a consequence of more efficient energy usage US greenhouse gas emissions are *FALLING* even as consumption has increased:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2019-04/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-economic-1990-2017.png


Again, capitalism and consumerism contributes significantly to improving efficiency and reducing our impact on the environment. I want to acknowledge once more that there is "government regulation" in this pie, but only where necessary.

All that is fine but the US per capita consumption is still the highest by a mile. Imagine if everyone wants to consume at the Same level in ROW, and that’s what we are seeing today. The US should set good precedent NOT consumerist precedent that everyone wants to follow. A great nation should set a great example for others to follow. We are setting bad precedent in everything: selecting a conman by slavery era EC to needlessly big homes to BIG SUVs to conspicuous consumerism to poor public transit. An educated and smart people are supposed to think for the society and future generations NOT me me me shortsighted selfishness. It is sad.

Once again, consumption is strongly correlated to quality of life: countries with higher quality of life will consume more by definition. Saying that the US per-capita consumption is the highest is not saying much beyond that the US has a high quality of life. By the way, the US does not have the highest consumption "by a mile". You can check the per-capita rankings here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household_final_consumption_expenditure_per_capita

I don't understand why you think consumption is bad. I agree it has become somewhat popular among impressionable youth to criticize consumerism as it is an idea supported by socialism and Marxist thought. It feeds into their sense of rebellion, to be counter-cultural. So edgy, so exciting!

Consumption will be more by $ amount because things are expensive in Europe even though Europeans consumes lot less. That is not a good measure at all.

Let us take carbon emissions/capita in which US is the leading emitter among large countries. If a county like Qatar with tiny population emits a lot per capita it is insignificant in global scale because of their tiny population.


https://cotap.org/per-capita-carbon-co2-emissions-by-country/

It is not true that countries with higher income consume the most because there are other factors like tax, subsidies that affect consumption. Western Europe is as rich as the US but their per capita consumption is lot less because they work to reduce emissions unlike the SUV driving Americans. Europeans also use public transit, get a big portion of their electricity from renewables and nuclear energy.

So the US is not a torch bearer when it comes to carbon emissions and infact we are the worst culprit since we are the only ones that pulled out of paris summit.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
We should all support less imports from China.
China is the worst environmental disaster ever!


[/quote]

American consumers are the worst environmental disaster ever. No one put a gun to every American's head and asked them to keep buying "stuff", whether they can afford or not.[/quote]

Ok, so let’s NOW reduce our made in China slave labor trade. Why not?

Better late than never....[/quote]

Not gonna happen. We are addicted to buying things and our economy is driven by consumerism. If we stop buying our economy will collapse. So we are stuck in a cycle of consumption. Its like riding a tiger. If we stop, the tiger will consume us.[/quote]

I often hear this line of argument but it strikes me as being irrational and detached from reality. Consumption is simply deriving incremental utility/enjoyment out of some good or service that you've purchased. Consuming is what gives value to the activities of an economic system. Every person consumes, some more than others, and in general there is a linear relationship between consumption and quality of life. It isn't somehow more virtuous to consume less. Every developing country in the world desires to consume more in order to improve the quality of life. Note that environmental conservation is also a type of consumption - people desire a better environment and work towards technologies which contribute to that goal, and there fore wind farms, solar energy, and etc.

There is nothing wrong with consumption in and of itself. [/quote]

Consumption for our needs is one thing but consumption for our wants is what kills the earth. The resources are finite and if all 7 billion consumes like greedy Americans there won’t be much of anything left and the world will fail to address climate change. [/quote]

But you discount the fact that our consumption gets more efficient with time - less waste, less energy, less manpower to produce one unit of consumption. And we’ve become incredibly adept at recycling previous units of consumption. We are more efficient at all points in the value chain.

-A liberal Democrat [/quote]

What you say maybe true BUT the consumption increase is many multiple the efficiency of modern production. So it simply outstrips any efficiency gains. [/quote]

That would be a great point, if true. But what we do see is that even as the US consumers consume more products and services, it takes *LESS* energy to supply those products and services:

[b]https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julian_Morris3/publication/324064513/figure/fig6/AS:667795524165642@1536226268658/US-ENERGY-CONSUMPTION-AND-CO2-EMISSIONS-PER-UNIT-OF-GDP.png
[/b]

And as a consequence of more efficient energy usage US greenhouse gas emissions are *FALLING* even as consumption has increased:

[b]https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2019-04/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-economic-1990-2017.png
[/b]

Again, capitalism and consumerism contributes significantly to improving efficiency and reducing our impact on the environment. I want to acknowledge once more that there is "government regulation" in this pie, but only where necessary.
[/quote]

All that is fine but the US per capita consumption is still the highest by a mile. Imagine if everyone wants to consume at the Same level in ROW, and that’s what we are seeing today. The US should set good precedent NOT consumerist precedent that everyone wants to follow. A great nation should set a great example for others to follow. We are setting bad precedent in everything: selecting a conman by slavery era EC to needlessly big homes to BIG SUVs to conspicuous consumerism to poor public transit. An educated and smart people are supposed to think for the society and future generations NOT me me me shortsighted selfishness. It is sad. [/quote]

Once again, consumption is strongly correlated to quality of life: countries with higher quality of life will consume more by definition. Saying that the US per-capita consumption is the highest is not saying much beyond that the US has a high quality of life. By the way, the US does not have the highest consumption "by a mile". You can check the per-capita rankings here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household_final_consumption_expenditure_per_capita

I don't understand why you think consumption is bad. I agree it has become somewhat popular among impressionable youth to criticize consumerism as it is an idea supported by socialism and Marxist thought. It feeds into their sense of rebellion, to be counter-cultural. So edgy, so exciting!

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
We should all support less imports from China.
China is the worst environmental disaster ever!


[/quote]

American consumers are the worst environmental disaster ever. No one put a gun to every American's head and asked them to keep buying "stuff", whether they can afford or not.[/quote]

Ok, so let’s NOW reduce our made in China slave labor trade. Why not?

Better late than never....[/quote]

Not gonna happen. We are addicted to buying things and our economy is driven by consumerism. If we stop buying our economy will collapse. So we are stuck in a cycle of consumption. Its like riding a tiger. If we stop, the tiger will consume us.[/quote]

I often hear this line of argument but it strikes me as being irrational and detached from reality. Consumption is simply deriving incremental utility/enjoyment out of some good or service that you've purchased. Consuming is what gives value to the activities of an economic system. Every person consumes, some more than others, and in general there is a linear relationship between consumption and quality of life. It isn't somehow more virtuous to consume less. Every developing country in the world desires to consume more in order to improve the quality of life. Note that environmental conservation is also a type of consumption - people desire a better environment and work towards technologies which contribute to that goal, and there fore wind farms, solar energy, and etc.

There is nothing wrong with consumption in and of itself. [/quote]

Consumption for our needs is one thing but consumption for our wants is what kills the earth. The resources are finite and if all 7 billion consumes like greedy Americans there won’t be much of anything left and the world will fail to address climate change. [/quote]

But you discount the fact that our consumption gets more efficient with time - less waste, less energy, less manpower to produce one unit of consumption. And we’ve become incredibly adept at recycling previous units of consumption. We are more efficient at all points in the value chain.

-A liberal Democrat [/quote]

What you say maybe true BUT the consumption increase is many multiple the efficiency of modern production. So it simply outstrips any efficiency gains. [/quote]

That would be a great point, if true. But what we do see is that even as the US consumers consume more products and services, it takes *LESS* energy to supply those products and services:

[b]https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julian_Morris3/publication/324064513/figure/fig6/AS:667795524165642@1536226268658/US-ENERGY-CONSUMPTION-AND-CO2-EMISSIONS-PER-UNIT-OF-GDP.png
[/b]

And as a consequence of more efficient energy usage US greenhouse gas emissions are *FALLING* even as consumption has increased:

[b]https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2019-04/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-economic-1990-2017.png
[/b]

Again, capitalism and consumerism contributes significantly to improving efficiency and reducing our impact on the environment. I want to acknowledge once more that there is "government regulation" in this pie, but only where necessary.
[/quote]

All that is fine but the US per capita consumption is still the highest by a mile. Imagine if everyone wants to consume at the Same level in ROW, and that’s what we are seeing today. The US should set good precedent NOT consumerist precedent that everyone wants to follow. A great nation should set a great example for others to follow. We are setting bad precedent in everything: selecting a conman by slavery era EC to needlessly big homes to BIG SUVs to conspicuous consumerism to poor public transit. An educated and smart people are supposed to think for the society and future generations NOT me me me shortsighted selfishness. It is sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We should all support less imports from China.
China is the worst environmental disaster ever!

American consumers are the worst environmental disaster ever. No one put a gun to every American's head and asked them to keep buying "stuff", whether they can afford or not.

Ok, so let’s NOW reduce our made in China slave labor trade. Why not?

Better late than never....

Not gonna happen. We are addicted to buying things and our economy is driven by consumerism. If we stop buying our economy will collapse. So we are stuck in a cycle of consumption. Its like riding a tiger. If we stop, the tiger will consume us.

I often hear this line of argument but it strikes me as being irrational and detached from reality. Consumption is simply deriving incremental utility/enjoyment out of some good or service that you've purchased. Consuming is what gives value to the activities of an economic system. Every person consumes, some more than others, and in general there is a linear relationship between consumption and quality of life. It isn't somehow more virtuous to consume less. Every developing country in the world desires to consume more in order to improve the quality of life. Note that environmental conservation is also a type of consumption - people desire a better environment and work towards technologies which contribute to that goal, and there fore wind farms, solar energy, and etc.

There is nothing wrong with consumption in and of itself.

Consumption for our needs is one thing but consumption for our wants is what kills the earth. The resources are finite and if all 7 billion consumes like greedy Americans there won’t be much of anything left and the world will fail to address climate change.

But you discount the fact that our consumption gets more efficient with time - less waste, less energy, less manpower to produce one unit of consumption. And we’ve become incredibly adept at recycling previous units of consumption. We are more efficient at all points in the value chain.

-A liberal Democrat

What you say maybe true BUT the consumption increase is many multiple the efficiency of modern production. So it simply outstrips any efficiency gains.

That would be a great point, if true. But what we do see is that even as the US consumers consume more products and services, it takes *LESS* energy to supply those products and services:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julian_Morris3/publication/324064513/figure/fig6/AS:667795524165642@1536226268658/US-ENERGY-CONSUMPTION-AND-CO2-EMISSIONS-PER-UNIT-OF-GDP.png


And as a consequence of more efficient energy usage US greenhouse gas emissions are *FALLING* even as consumption has increased:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2019-04/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-economic-1990-2017.png


Again, capitalism and consumerism contributes significantly to improving efficiency and reducing our impact on the environment. I want to acknowledge once more that there is "government regulation" in this pie, but only where necessary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A good chunk of the discussion on this thread had been engaging, thoughtful, and stripped of the same tired talking points. I prefer to exchange views with people who hold different opinions rather than hear my own recycled and repeated. Thank you to those who engaged with civility.

I do take delight in the fact that this thread is longer and far more engaging than that other "optimism" thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We should all support less imports from China.
China is the worst environmental disaster ever!

American consumers are the worst environmental disaster ever. No one put a gun to every American's head and asked them to keep buying "stuff", whether they can afford or not.

Ok, so let’s NOW reduce our made in China slave labor trade. Why not?

Better late than never....

Not gonna happen. We are addicted to buying things and our economy is driven by consumerism. If we stop buying our economy will collapse. So we are stuck in a cycle of consumption. Its like riding a tiger. If we stop, the tiger will consume us.

I often hear this line of argument but it strikes me as being irrational and detached from reality. Consumption is simply deriving incremental utility/enjoyment out of some good or service that you've purchased. Consuming is what gives value to the activities of an economic system. Every person consumes, some more than others, and in general there is a linear relationship between consumption and quality of life. It isn't somehow more virtuous to consume less. Every developing country in the world desires to consume more in order to improve the quality of life. Note that environmental conservation is also a type of consumption - people desire a better environment and work towards technologies which contribute to that goal, and there fore wind farms, solar energy, and etc.

There is nothing wrong with consumption in and of itself.

Consumption for our needs is one thing but consumption for our wants is what kills the earth. The resources are finite and if all 7 billion consumes like greedy Americans there won’t be much of anything left and the world will fail to address climate change.

PP here, but therein is the rub: what is a need and what is a want? Who gets to decide. You? Me? The city? The Federal Government? Some guy in Brussels?

I also don't see why you choose to ignore the readily observable fact that "good environment" is something that consumers value. Look at all the early adopters who spent money consuming Tesla vehicles. Look at all the people who consumed solar panels. Look at all the people who consume more energy efficient refrigerators, more water efficient faucets, less toxic herbicides, more recyclable fast food containers. All of these are in reaction to consumer demand.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We should all support less imports from China.
China is the worst environmental disaster ever!

American consumers are the worst environmental disaster ever. No one put a gun to every American's head and asked them to keep buying "stuff", whether they can afford or not.

Ok, so let’s NOW reduce our made in China slave labor trade. Why not?

Better late than never....

Not gonna happen. We are addicted to buying things and our economy is driven by consumerism. If we stop buying our economy will collapse. So we are stuck in a cycle of consumption. Its like riding a tiger. If we stop, the tiger will consume us.

I often hear this line of argument but it strikes me as being irrational and detached from reality. Consumption is simply deriving incremental utility/enjoyment out of some good or service that you've purchased. Consuming is what gives value to the activities of an economic system. Every person consumes, some more than others, and in general there is a linear relationship between consumption and quality of life. It isn't somehow more virtuous to consume less. Every developing country in the world desires to consume more in order to improve the quality of life. Note that environmental conservation is also a type of consumption - people desire a better environment and work towards technologies which contribute to that goal, and there fore wind farms, solar energy, and etc.

There is nothing wrong with consumption in and of itself.

Consumption for our needs is one thing but consumption for our wants is what kills the earth. The resources are finite and if all 7 billion consumes like greedy Americans there won’t be much of anything left and the world will fail to address climate change.

But you discount the fact that our consumption gets more efficient with time - less waste, less energy, less manpower to produce one unit of consumption. And we’ve become incredibly adept at recycling previous units of consumption. We are more efficient at all points in the value chain.

-A liberal Democrat

What you say maybe true BUT the consumption increase is many multiple the efficiency of modern production. So it simply outstrips any efficiency gains.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this in the other optimist thread.

k it’s a coin toss. Just as there are many people not talking about Trump that will vote for him, there are many people who will come out in droves to do all they can from keeping him in office.

Swing voters are going to determine the fate.

And to that end:

I also predict that eventually swing voters will get so frustrated with Rep/Dem options, stakeholders will begin to heavily invest in reframing the independent party and run a candidate that will in years to come be elected as an independent president.

-l

Disagree. We have a constitutional problem that makes 3rd parties nonstrategic from the voters' perspective. Until we have run-off elections for every federal and state office, two parties will continue to dominate because voters are smart enough to realize that 3rd parties are a "wasted" vote. The two parties are endemic to a structural failure by the Founding Fathers to require run-off elections for every elected office.

Until we fix that problems, voting for a 3rd party ends up electing your least desirable candidate.

That's exactly what PP was saying. At some point, frustration with BOTH parties will finally create a viable 3rd party candidate.

Anonymous wrote:I posted this in the other optimist thread.

k it’s a coin toss. Just as there are many people not talking about Trump that will vote for him, there are many people who will come out in droves to do all they can from keeping him in office.

Swing voters are going to determine the fate.

And to that end:

I also predict that eventually swing voters will get so frustrated with Rep/Dem options, stakeholders will begin to heavily invest in reframing the independent party and run a candidate that will in years to come be elected as an independent president.

-l

I would love to see a viable independent candidate. There is so much overlap from both parties in my political views. Maybe one day...

He will have to stand behind painful stuff like everify. It it's hard on farmers, then Congress will be motivated to act and pass wider seasonal worker allowances. He can't have it both ways and win though. Republicans in general can't. - A Republican who wants a welcoming country for legal immigration, asylum for true refugees, and to control our broders.

Anonymous wrote:I told someone that Trump has terrible optics but produces results. Obama had great optics but was mostly ineffectual.

I don't like Trump but I'll choose results over optics any time.

Nailed it. Liberals are most concerned with optics. Excruciatingly so. Like you, I'll take results.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming that either of you is being sincere - what would turn you from voting from Clinton to voting for Trump? I am asking this sincerely. To me he is an unmitigated disaster, a wannabe Duterte-type without the smarts to actually be Duterte. What is the appeal to someone who previously didn't fall for his strong man schtick?

(Please don't say illegals or wall.)

Please read this whole thread --- plenty of good arguments that have nothing to do with illegals or the wall.

I am specifically asking the PPs who say they did not vote for him in 2016, why they would vote for him this time. The thread is mostly derpy derping. Not genuine conversation.

This is one of the most thoughtful and civilized threads I have seen on dcum in a while. Perhaps you have forgotten the feel of "genuine conversation"?

In any case, as one of the posters in question, here's my specific reason. Back in 2016 I had no idea what he would actually do in the WH. Would the economy implode? Would he try to deport 10 million immigrants? Would he start a random war with who knows why? By now, in 2019, we have a pretty good sense that he's more capable than expected (not nicer or smarter, just more capable). The economy is great, lower violent crime rates, pretty sensible immigration and security policies, ISIS destroyed, renegotiating harmful trade deals with Mexico and China.

Hm. Well you are mostly repeating just Republican/WH talking points that have little basis in reality. So. Oh well.

Oh, honey. I'm not the PP, but you have a major case of sour grapes. The conversation isn't going the way you want it to (i.e. looney leftist propaganda), so you're throwing a little tantrum. How about you let the grownups talk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming that either of you is being sincere - what would turn you from voting from Clinton to voting for Trump? I am asking this sincerely. To me he is an unmitigated disaster, a wannabe Duterte-type without the smarts to actually be Duterte. What is the appeal to someone who previously didn't fall for his strong man schtick?

(Please don't say illegals or wall.)

Please read this whole thread --- plenty of good arguments that have nothing to do with illegals or the wall.

I am specifically asking the PPs who say they did not vote for him in 2016, why they would vote for him this time. The thread is mostly derpy derping. Not genuine conversation.

This is one of the most thoughtful and civilized threads I have seen on dcum in a while. Perhaps you have forgotten the feel of "genuine conversation"?

In any case, as one of the posters in question, here's my specific reason. Back in 2016 I had no idea what he would actually do in the WH. Would the economy implode? Would he try to deport 10 million immigrants? Would he start a random war with who knows why? By now, in 2019, we have a pretty good sense that he's more capable than expected (not nicer or smarter, just more capable). The economy is great, lower violent crime rates, pretty sensible immigration and security policies, ISIS destroyed, renegotiating harmful trade deals with Mexico and China.

Completely agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming that either of you is being sincere - what would turn you from voting from Clinton to voting for Trump? I am asking this sincerely. To me he is an unmitigated disaster, a wannabe Duterte-type without the smarts to actually be Duterte. What is the appeal to someone who previously didn't fall for his strong man schtick?

(Please don't say illegals or wall.)

Please read this whole thread --- plenty of good arguments that have nothing to do with illegals or the wall.

I am specifically asking the PPs who say they did not vote for him in 2016, why they would vote for him this time. The thread is mostly derpy derping. Not genuine conversation.

You must be joking. This is one of the few threads in which genuine conversation is actually taking place. Now, you may not *like* the conversation, but that sounds like a you problem.
-DP