Trump's strong support / Democrats' lack of support, by white women

[Stevicus]

OK, tell people that they are making too much money. Tell them you want to reduce their wages. You wouldn't get elected to sweep the streets.



Uh, didn't you just say you wanted lower wages!

You're not posting in good faith when you say things like this. If you were capable of following the discussion, you would have not said this.

This just keeps getting sillier and sillier.

Well, then why don't you give up? Put me on ignore if you can't handle it.

 

[ecco]

You may not like what I say, but at least I'm saying what I honestly believe.

Yes, I am sure that you honestly believe the thoughts in your head. Creationists also believe the thoughts in their heads. Flat earthers also believe the thoughts in their heads.

But if you cannot show anything to support those thoughts, then that is all they are - thoughts in your head - AKA unsubstantiated opinions.

You sound like you're posturing.

Nope. Just pointing out that some people like to present unsubstantiated opinions as fact.

 

[Stevicus]

How do you propose to do that? By fiat? By executive order?

FDR established an Office of Price Administration.

Yes, your original point. A point that you have been unable to support.

Your opinion has been noted. I don't care if you think I haven't supported the point. I've noticed you've also trashed Ralph Nader and Bernard Sanders, too, so I guess I'm in good company to get on the wrong side of @ecco. If you represent the Democratic Party establishment and go along with what they want, then you're supporting my point right now.

 

[ecco]

Hmm...well, I've been considering starting a thread in which I post all of my ideas for change and solutions for a better world. I'll think about it.

So, once more - nothing. At least this time you qualified it with a "maybe someday".

As for how I would make them the law of the land, that's another matter entirely. A lot of people (including yourself, apparently) seem scared of any real change and want to maintain the status quo just for the sake of maintaining the status quo. These are called "conservatives," and they are a stubborn bunch. Those who call themselves "liberals" are similar, even though they fall all over themselves to try to deny it, just as you are doing.

The above is an excellent example of your style of posting. I asked how you would accomplish a specific thing. You replied: "As for how I would make them the law of the land, that's another matter entirely." That's your copout reason for not addressing it here and now, because it's "another matter entirely"? You had no problem posting all kinds of other matters entirely.

But then, rather than address the "other matter", you took the time to write a whole jumbled attack paragraph.

"A lot of people (including yourself, apparently) seem scared of any real change and want to maintain the status quo just for the sake of maintaining the status quo. These are called "conservatives," and they are a stubborn bunch. Those who call themselves "liberals" are similar, even though they fall all over themselves to try to deny it, just as you are doing."​

 

[ecco]

Well, then why don't you give up? Put me on ignore if you can't handle it.

If you want the glory of me giving up, then revel in it.

It's not a matter of being able to "handle it". It's has everything to do with being bored of you making assertions that you cannot support and ducking and dodging when called out.

I don't put people on ignore. I'll continue to read your posts. But, in this thread, I'll no longer respond.

But, I'll continue to point out BS whoever posts it. Just not yours in this thread anymore.

Bye.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then why don't you support the Republicans? If the Democrats like capitalism just like the Republicans, then what is the real difference between the two? Nothing.

Wrongo pongo!
Big dif....
Dems pretend to like black folk.
Pubs pretend to like small government.

That just means it was implemented poorly. It doesn't mean it was a bad idea.

Emprically, it does indeed mean that communism, socialism,
& Marxism are a bad idea. If every attempt to implement
them fails, this points to inherent fatal flaws. From system
engineering design perspective, they're fault intolerant due
to lack of independent distributed systems.

 

[Stevicus]

WOW! Who do I think you are?

I can see MikeTyson making that sort of warning comment to a belligerent drunk in a bar. There, it would have real meaning.

But coming from a poster on RF? Really? Perhaps you meant it as a joke.


Who do I think you are?
As far as knowing who you are, I can only go by your posts. You are just another RF poster who has made a number of allegations that he cannot support with facts or evidence.

No, the way I see it, either you're going to address the issues, or you make the topic about me. Simply address the points without critiquing my posts.

You're the one who has already proven my allegations as correct. I said Democrats are against working people. This is fact, and you've even confirmed as much by opposing price controls, socialized medicine, and ending outsourcing. These are things that would help the workers. You and many other mainstream Democrats are against that. Therefore you are against the workers. That's my support and evidence right there. Your own words have confirmed this.

 

[Stevicus]

What did I get wrong?

Due to falling copper prices, the company had to cut costs or go bankrupt. They chose to cust some costs and save some jobs.
The union went for an all or nothing approach.

What did I get wrong?

You are putting yourself out as an expert on this incident. Yet you have posted nothing other than some vitriol against the Governor. You haven't shown that you have any real knowledge of the incident. You haven't even been able to counter my comments. The only thing you did was to try to puff yourself up with "knowledge" that you haven't demonstrated.

Here's some more information about the strike, in case you're interested.

On the Great Arizona Copper Strike, 1983-1986 | UAPress

The Phelps-Dodge Copper Strike in Clifton-Morenci, 1983-1986 – Barriozona Magazine

 

[Stevicus]

You certainly have not been able to support your arguments. My comments were directed to your inability to do so.

And that's called "making it about the poster instead of about the post."

Also, you're just plain wrong when you keep saying I haven't supported my arguments. In my judgement, I have. Your opinions on the subject are meaningless.

Most of what I've argued is pretty much common knowledge. Clinton did support NAFTA. Were you not aware of this? You think that such an argument needs support when it's a historical fact which can be looked up just about anywhere?

There was a copper strike in Arizona, and Democratic Governor Bruce Babbitt did send troops and armored vehicles to Morenci to oppose the strikers. That's not siding with the workers, but he did it just the same. The link you posted and the two articles I just posted confirm this. I remember seeing it in the local news and on local TV, and the copper strike was a very big deal to many people here in Arizona. Again, this is all public knowledge, and I've not made any attempt to conceal anything. I didn't think something that well-known would need to be proven to you, as you've just flown in on some big white balloon.

What else were you complaining about? Oh yeah, that Forbes article, but let's just forget about that since it bothers you so much. Even without that, I still have provided plenty of examples to demonstrate my overall point: Democrats are no friends of the working class.

That's the bottom line. For some reason I can't possibly fathom, you've chosen to take offense at this. But I'm not responsible for your feelings. If you can't address the point without baseless accusations that I haven't supported my argument (when I have), then I can conclude that you're just sniping at me because you're angry. Which is okay. It's okay if you're angry at me. It's not okay to say I haven't been able to support my arguments when I obviously have. You may not have understood them or maybe you lost track of the discussion, but that's on you.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Is it concerning that statistically, about as many white women tend to vote for Trump in elections as the Democrat candidates who ran against him? And could this be the result of Democrat runners ignoring the needs of white women? If so, how are they doing so?

No, why would it be concerning for people to support who they please for president? Plenty of non-whites and LGBT people support him, too.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, I am sure that you honestly believe the thoughts in your head. Creationists also believe the thoughts in their heads. Flat earthers also believe the thoughts in their heads.

But if you cannot show anything to support those thoughts, then that is all they are - thoughts in your head - AKA unsubstantiated opinions.


Nope. Just pointing out that some people like to present unsubstantiated opinions as fact.

The above is an excellent example of your style of posting. All I ever see you do is attack other posters and give your own baseless and highly opinionated attacks which offer absolutely nothing of any substance.

What are the thoughts in my head that you're challenging? I'm not a creationist or a flat-earther, so you can dispense with that kind of talk. Let's go back and see how this whole exchange started. I posted in post #8 (which you quoted in post #50):

Funny thing is, it would be so easy for the Democrats to put the Republicans away entirely in an election, if only they would stop sucking up to big business.

You quoted this, yet the first word in your response was "Trump." I didn't even mention Trump in post #8. What does Trump have to do with what the Democrats do?

Not that it really matters, but many people here post their opinions about politics. Politics is a social science, so your mendacious attempt to conflate that with evolutionary biology or physics will not be successful - at least not with me. I can easily see through those kinds of tactics. I was posting my perception of what I see, and I cited real world examples to explain why I see it that way.

You seem to believe that I should not see it that way, that I should believe that the Democrats are the party of the working class. But instead of making an honest attempt to convince me, all you really did was attack my posts and suggested that I'm just pulling stuff out of thin air. Even if I was doing that, why should that even matter to you? Why do *I* matter so much to you? I am not important here. I am not the issue here. The issue is the Democrats, not me.

 

[Stevicus]

So, once more - nothing. At least this time you qualified it with a "maybe someday".

Well, I didn't have time to post an entire treatise, if that's what you're asking for. If you're really interested in me and what I believe in, when I feel like writing a post outlining my beliefs and proposals for change, I'll add your name to it so you'll be alerted when I do. How's that?

The above is an excellent example of your style of posting. I asked how you would accomplish a specific thing. You replied: "As for how I would make them the law of the land, that's another matter entirely." That's your copout reason for not addressing it here and now, because it's "another matter entirely"? You had no problem posting all kinds of other matters entirely.

But then, rather than address the "other matter", you took the time to write a whole jumbled attack paragraph.

"A lot of people (including yourself, apparently) seem scared of any real change and want to maintain the status quo just for the sake of maintaining the status quo. These are called "conservatives," and they are a stubborn bunch. Those who call themselves "liberals" are similar, even though they fall all over themselves to try to deny it, just as you are doing."​

Actually that paragraph was right on point. You asked how I would make it the law of the land.

First, I should point out that I am not a politician, nor do I hold any special position in government. I do not have the power to make anything the law of the land. I'm just an ordinary citizen stating his ideas just like tens of millions of other ordinary citizens across the internet. This is an informal setting, and it's a good place to jaw about any number of topics. That's why I come here. We're not on the floor of Congress here, you know.

As I said, if you don't like my ideas, then so be it. You don't have to tell me why, but I would wonder why you would bother spending time posting all kinds of irrelevant nonsense if you're not going to cut to the chase.

 

[Stevicus]

If you want the glory of me giving up, then revel in it.

It's not a matter of being able to "handle it". It's has everything to do with being bored of you making assertions that you cannot support and ducking and dodging when called out.

I don't put people on ignore. I'll continue to read your posts. But, in this thread, I'll no longer respond.

But, I'll continue to point out BS whoever posts it. Just not yours in this thread anymore.

Bye.

So then, you just fancy yourself as some kind of teacher who doesn't like sloppy homework? Is that it? You have no opinions of your own, no views of your own? This is just some academic exercise to you?

If that's what you want to do, then I won't stand in the way.

 

[Stevicus]

Wrongo pongo!
Big dif....
Dems pretend to like black folk.
Pubs pretend to like small government.

Pubs pretend to like black folk, too. They just don't have the same finesse that the Dems have had.

Both also pretend to be for the little guy and against big gov, but nothing ever really seems to change, regardless of which party is in power at any given time.

Emprically, it does indeed mean that communism, socialism,
& Marxism are a bad idea. If every attempt to implement
them fails, this points to inherent fatal flaws. From system
engineering design perspective, they're fault intolerant due
to lack of independent distributed systems.

That point wasn't really about communism, socialism, or Marxism, but about rent/price controls in America. There haven't been that many attempts, although the attempt made when FDR was president worked swimmingly (at least as far as price controls; rent controls were local).

As for rent controls, they ostensibly worked for a few people. I remember hearing about rent controls in Santa Monica and how it only affects a few properties; it's not citywide and it doesn't apply to all rental properties. So, if there's a place that is under rent controls, then a lot of people want to live there. It certainly works for whoever is lucky enough to live in such a place with such a low rent. Viewed from that narrow standpoint, then rent controls are a success.

But how come they implement it for just a few properties and not all of them? How can that be considered an honest attempt at implementation? It sounds like it was set up to fail just so people can say "there you see, rent controls suck." But how can we know for certain unless it's implemented universally over a wide geographical area?

 

[Revoltingest]

Pubs pretend to like black folk, too. They just don't have the same finesse that the Dems have had.

Both also pretend to be for the little guy and against big gov, but nothing ever really seems to change, regardless of which party is in power at any given time.



That point wasn't really about communism, socialism, or Marxism, but about rent/price controls in America. There haven't been that many attempts, although the attempt made when FDR was president worked swimmingly (at least as far as price controls; rent controls were local).

As for rent controls, they ostensibly worked for a few people. I remember hearing about rent controls in Santa Monica and how it only affects a few properties; it's not citywide and it doesn't apply to all rental properties. So, if there's a place that is under rent controls, then a lot of people want to live there. It certainly works for whoever is lucky enough to live in such a place with such a low rent. Viewed from that narrow standpoint, then rent controls are a success.

But how come they implement it for just a few properties and not all of them? How can that be considered an honest attempt at implementation? It sounds like it was set up to fail just so people can say "there you see, rent controls suck." But how can we know for certain unless it's implemented universally over a wide geographical area?

Rent control....remove profit incentive, & there are
problems....
- Disinventive to maintain units.
- Disincentive to build new housing.
- Corruption becomes common, eg, tenants renting units
for only occasional occupancy because artificially low cost
is cheaper than hotels. (I have relatives doing this.)

What's better?
UBI & a free market.

 

[Stevicus]

Rent control....remove profit incentive, & there are
problems....
- Disinventive to maintain units.
- Disincentive to build new housing.
- Corruption becomes common, eg, tenants renting units
for only occasional occupancy because artificially low cost
is cheaper than hotels. (I have relatives doing this.)

What's better?
UBI & a free market.

UBI and a free market? If/when UBI is ever implemented, then maybe so.

I suppose there might be ways to implement rent controls to such a degree that there might be some profit incentive, but how much profit is enough to be an incentive?

 

[Revoltingest]

UBI and a free market? If/when UBI is ever implemented, then maybe so.

The best path....
Pre-UBI: No rent control
UBI: No rent control

I suppose there might be ways to implement rent controls to such a degree that there might be some profit incentive, but how much profit is enough to be an incentive?

Reduce the profit, & the problems arise.
Rent control also increases property tax rates.
Homeowners pay for it too. Later tenants suffer
because of housing shortages. But hey...as long
as some get a subsidy, & government gets a new
bureaucracy, it's progress, eh.

 

[Stevicus]

The best path....
Pre-UBI: No rent control
UBI: No rent control

Reduce the profit, & the problems arise.
Rent control also increases property tax rates.
Homeowners pay for it too. Later tenants suffer
because of housing shortages. But hey...as long
as some get a subsidy, & government gets a new
bureaucracy, it's progress, eh.

I'd just like to see more affordable housing available. The current system doesn't seem to work well for a large number of people, even with all these capitalistic incentives and profits under the current system. It seems pretty clear that the wealthiest people in this country are doing well enough. I can't believe that it should be any great hardship for them if they have to take a little bit less.

I just find it interesting to compare the situation of the average billionaire versus a homeless person, yet it's the billionaire who worries about not making enough money.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd just like to see more affordable housing available.

Ever consider cutting some of the government imposed
costs & restrictions? Eg, cutting permit fees, allowing higher
density housing (which is also greener than low density).

 

[Stevicus]

Ever consider cutting some of the government imposed
costs & restrictions? Eg, cutting permit fees, allowing higher
density housing (which is greener than low density).

Well, at least that's not rent control, is it? I thought rent control was such a bad idea, but there's all this other stuff in place? Is it designed to help the working classes and make affordable housing more accessible? If not, then who benefits from this?

If it's what I think it is, it might be similar to what I've seen around here. A lot of government restrictions seem to be rooted in a sentimental (yet impractical) desire to protect the middle class "Leave it to Beaver" neighborhoods that some people value. In other words, "NIMBYs."

Is that what it is?