Miami Herald: I’m done trying to understand Trump supporters. Why don’t they try to understand me?

[DogofWar1]

16 hours ago, Nerm said:

I think a good starting point for changing someone else's political beliefs is to be able to clearly state what their beliefs are, and the reasoning behind those beliefs, in a way they will agree with.

Two problems:

1. The person needs to be able to know what their beliefs are themselves before someone else can articulate them to another (see: Jeff Flake on tariffs, Collins on Roe v. Wade).

2. The person needs to be honest, both with themselves and the person trying to articulate their position, about what their beliefs are.

 

 

Let's talk about something less socially inflammatory, like the US deficit.

 

What is the average GOP Congressman's beliefs re: deficit and debt?  Certainly during Obama the debt was front and center.

 

Meanwhile, come Trump, huge tax cuts were passed basically unanimously, and the only person from the GOP in the Senate who seemed to have a problem with the spending increases in the budget was Rand Paul.

 

What were the other 50 doing?  More specifically, what were the other 50 doing in, say, 2013?

 

So for question 1, do these guys actually care about the deficit/debt?  Or do they only use it as a political tool, which of course leads to #2, being honest about it.

 

And here's the thing, a huge quantity of their voters were right there with them.  Criticizing Obama's spending despite the fact that Obama had proposed one of the harshest spending reductions in modern history, followed by going full drunken gambling addicted sailor once Trump was in there.

 

If a prerequisite to changing someone's mind is articulating their political beliefs correctly, how are we to do that when on a variety of issues there is such liquification of viewpoints such that core beliefs appear absent?

[twa]

5 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

That "-D" after his name stands for "Disqualified"

 

The company ya keep can do that according to most here.

If that D changes perhaps I will support them again.

I could vote for him,but not for senator. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Just now, twa said:

The company ya keep can do that according to most here.

If that D changes perhaps I will support them again.

I could vote for him,but not for senator. 

I got a "D" For you right here!!!! Eh? 

 

No but seriously, I don''t trust him. When people ask him questions he answers them with actual content and it's clear that he's studied the issues and spent a great deal of time in deep thought trying to determine which action would help the most people and do the greatest amount of good. Seems pretty fishy to me.

[twa]

5 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I got a "D" For you right here!!!! Eh? 

 

No but seriously, I don''t trust him. When people ask him questions he answers them with actual content and it's clear that he's studied the issues and spent a great deal of time in deep thought trying to determine which action would help the most people and do the greatest amount of good. Seems pretty fishy to me.

 

Well if you like him and those he will align with I would suggest voting for him.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 minutes ago, twa said:

Well if you like him and those he will align with I would suggest voting for him.

Well I just might.... Maybe. We'll see what's on TV that day.

[The Evil Genius]

This is for a lot of us. ? I don't necessarily agree 100% but there is a lot here worth reading and applying. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nerm]

12 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Clearly...what are your beliefs?

 

That is a big question.  Rather than get into specific issues, I would say my philosophy about political issues tends to be that reasonable, intelligent, and caring people can have very different views about many issues.  I have opinions about issues, but I don't assume that all my opinions are correct.  Some opinions I have are different than they were ten years ago.  I assume that some of my current beliefs will change in the next ten years. I am also aware that my opinions would be very different if I had grown up in a different environment, with different experiences.  So I guess I try not to get too upset about politics, and if I am angry about something, I try to remind myself "I could be wrong".

[LD0506]

[Nerm]

3 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

If a prerequisite to changing someone's mind is articulating their political beliefs correctly, how are we to do that when on a variety of issues there is such liquification of viewpoints such that core beliefs appear absent?

 

I don't follow this stuff very closely.  I think there are a lot of examples of politicians who are inconsistent when it comes to deficit/spending issues.  I think it is pretty hard to change the minds of people in office already.  Politicians tend to be more loyal to their party than their beliefs, in my opinion.

 

I think the examples you gave of the GOP bill increasing the deficit, after the complaints about Obama's deficit spending is a good example of GOP hypocrisy.  I also think Obama was hypocritical in supporting increased deficit spending after saying Bush's deficits were unpatriotic and voting against raising the debt ceiling as a senator.  That's the nature of politics.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Nerm

[Riggo-toni]

[twa]

Hillary embroidering now?

 

or is that cross stitch?

[LD0506]

[Kilmer17]

I know that's just a joke, but it's really what I've been saying for years now.  Trump won because people hated Hillary and the Dems THAT MUCH!  So defending him really is as simple as "Still better than Hillary".

[LD0506]

[Zguy28]

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

I know that's just a joke, but it's really what I've been saying for years now.  Trump won because people hated Hillary and the Dems THAT MUCH!  So defending him really is as simple as "Still better than Hillary".

But... SPACE FORCE!!

[PeterMP]

On 6/29/2018 at 4:59 PM, Nerm said:

 

I don't follow this stuff very closely.  I think there are a lot of examples of politicians who are inconsistent when it comes to deficit/spending issues.  I think it is pretty hard to change the minds of people in office already.  Politicians tend to be more loyal to their party than their beliefs, in my opinion.

 

I think the examples you gave of the GOP bill increasing the deficit, after the complaints about Obama's deficit spending is a good example of GOP hypocrisy.  I also think Obama was hypocritical in supporting increased deficit spending after saying Bush's deficits were unpatriotic and voting against raising the debt ceiling as a senator.  That's the nature of politics.

 

Different times require different measures and context matters.

 

When facing the greatest economic collapse at least since the Great Depression, deficit spending makes sense.  Cutting taxes at a time when the economy appears to be relatively strong, but the deficit debt is an issue, and it is likely going to grow as you are fighting two wars creating more deficit spending by cutting taxes makes less sense.

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[Nerm]

4 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Different times require different measures and context matters.

 

When facing the greatest economic collapse at least since the Great Depression, deficit spending makes sense.  Cutting taxes at a time when the economy appears to be relatively strong, but the deficit debt is an issue, and it is likely going to grow as you are fighting two wars creating more deficit spending by cutting taxes makes less sense.

 I hear what you are saying.  I think the housing crisis was a huge economic event that required unprecidented action by the government.  On the other hand, when discussing goals of improving the economy, I think that we have to acknowledge that there are fundamental disagreements about how to achieve those goals.  On the left, there is the belief that government spending/investment will improve the economy and the quality of life for Americans.  On the right, there is the belief that lower taxes and reduced regulation is the best way to get those results.  I guess I don't see either side as being more principled with their stances.  A person on the left will see deficit spending for stimulus purposes as being more reasonable than cutting taxes.  A person on the right will see tax reductions that increase deficits as more reasonable for improving the economy.  

[PeterMP]

5 hours ago, Nerm said:

 I hear what you are saying.  I think the housing crisis was a huge economic event that required unprecidented action by the government.  On the other hand, when discussing goals of improving the economy, I think that we have to acknowledge that there are fundamental disagreements about how to achieve those goals.  On the left, there is the belief that government spending/investment will improve the economy and the quality of life for Americans.  On the right, there is the belief that lower taxes and reduced regulation is the best way to get those results.  I guess I don't see either side as being more principled with their stances.  A person on the left will see deficit spending for stimulus purposes as being more reasonable than cutting taxes.  A person on the right will see tax reductions that increase deficits as more reasonable for improving the economy.  

 

The person on the left sees deficit spending as a stimulus when the economy is struggling.

 

The economy wasn't struggling when Bush proposed his tax cuts initially and in the face of fighting two wars we were almost certainly looking at more deficit spending even without the tax cut.

 

The Republicans arguing for tax cuts when Obama was President and comparing that too the deficit spending he did might make sense.

 

But that wasn't the issue at all at the time of the Bush tax cuts.

 

Obama was against the Bush tax cuts at the time they were introduced because the economy was doing at least okay.  Once the economy tanked, then he was for more deficit spending and so wasn't for ending them.

Edited July 7, 2018 by PeterMP

[Nerm]

8 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

The person on the left sees deficit spending as a stimulus when the economy is struggling.

 

The economy wasn't struggling when Bush proposed his tax cuts initially and in the face of fighting two wars we were almost certainly looking at more deficit spending even without the tax cut.

 

The Republicans arguing for tax cuts when Obama was President and comparing that too the deficit spending he did might make sense.

 

But that wasn't the issue at all at the time of the Bush tax cuts.

 

I think we are talking past each other a bit.  I'm not saying that both sides were equally correct in their assessments of acceptable deficit levels, and the benifits of increasing them.  I'm just saying that I don't think that there is one side that is more disingenuous/dishonest than the other overall when making their case in those situations you discussed.  

[PeterMP]

1 minute ago, Nerm said:

 

I think we are talking past each other a bit.  I'm not saying that both sides were equally correct in their assessments of acceptable deficit levels, and the benifits of increasing them.  I'm just saying that I don't think that there is one side that is more disingenuous/dishonest than the other overall when making their case in those situations you discussed.  

 

The Republicans are clearly more disingenuous with respect to their concern about the deficit.   Obama's lack of concern about the deficit while he was President was the result of the economic collapse.

 

The Republicans have shown they are willing to cut taxes when the economy is not really struggling (now with Trump and with the initial Bush tax cuts) and negatively impact the deficit even when the economy is doing well.

 

They only cared about the deficit when Obama was President (when it made the least since to do so because we were facing an economic collapse).

[Nerm]

 

8 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

The Republicans are clearly more disingenuous with respect to their concern about the deficit.   Obama's lack of concern about the deficit while he was President was the result of the economic collapse.

 

They only cared about the deficit when Obama was President (when it made the least since to do so because we were facing an economic collapse).

 

I guess where I see the disconnect is the part where the Republicans were "more" disingenuous.  Below is a quote from Obama about his complaints regarding Bush deficits, versus what he thinks when he is president.  He sort of acknowledges he was making a "political vote" rather than doing what is best for the country.  It sounds like he may be acknowledging that he was being disingenuous, in a way similar to the behavior of Republicans during his administration.  

"I think that it’s important to understand the vantage point of a senator versus the vantage point of a president. When you’re a senator, traditionally what’s happened is, this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt limit — for the United States by a trillion dollars. As president, you start realizing, you know what, we, we can’t play around with this stuff. This is the full faith and credit of the United States. And so that was just an example of a new senator making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I’m the first one to acknowledge it."

[PeterMP]

8 minutes ago, Nerm said:

 

 

I guess where I see the disconnect is the part where the Republicans were "more" disingenuous.  Below is a quote from Obama about his complaints regarding Bush deficits, versus what he thinks when he is president.  He sort of acknowledges he was making a "political vote" rather than doing what is best for the country.  It sounds like he may be acknowledging that he was being disingenuous, in a way similar to the behavior of Republicans during his administration.  

"I think that it’s important to understand the vantage point of a senator versus the vantage point of a president. When you’re a senator, traditionally what’s happened is, this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt limit — for the United States by a trillion dollars. As president, you start realizing, you know what, we, we can’t play around with this stuff. This is the full faith and credit of the United States. And so that was just an example of a new senator making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I’m the first one to acknowledge it."

 

That's with respect to raising the debt ceiling.  Not the over all idea of the Bush tax cuts/deficiets.

 

Raising the debt ceiling has always been a political vote.  But raising the debt ceiling is not why we have such a large debt/deficit.

 

We have to raise the debt ceiling because we always have deficits.

Edited July 7, 2018 by PeterMP

[Nerm]

18 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

That's with respect to raising the debt ceiling.  Not the over all idea of the Bush tax cuts.

 

Raising the debt ceiling has always been a political vote.  But raising the debt ceiling is not why we have such a large debt/deficit.

 

In my opinion, the size of the deficits that Bush and Obama ran were a big reason for the debates about debt limits.  I see them as connected, but I could be wrong.

[PeterMP]

8 hours ago, Nerm said:

 

In my opinion, the size of the deficits that Bush and Obama ran were a big reason for the debates about debt limits.  I see them as connected, but I could be wrong.

 

They are connected.  But what Obama is saying in that quote essentially is once we have the debt, you essentially have to raise the debt ceiling because the only other option is to default.

 

There are at some level two separate issues:

 

1.  When the economy is doing pretty well, should we pursue policies that lower the debt and deficit.  The answer to that question is yes. (Though we see the Republicans have answered that question with a no, while Obama generally practiced deficit lowering practices after we were past the danger of the economic collapse (though the deficit did go up slightly his last year)

 

2.  If there is an issue with the debt ceiling, should we raise it?  Yes.  Us defaulting on our debt, which is what would happen if we didn't raise it, would cause a global economic collapse that probably would surpass the Great Depression.