Trump supporters subjected to "extreme vetting"....and fail

[rexlunae]

Somehow, that doesn't surprise me. Liberals tend to live in places where scant few conservatives live.

I live in a very conservative place, actually. A diverse place, but conservative. When I lived in North Dakota, most of the (few) homeless were white. That was in line with the demography of the area. Now I live in a state with a majority-Hispanic population with significant numbers of black people and white people, and it seems like most of the homeless are also Hispanic, with some black people and some white people thrown in the mix.

And I get around a lot.

 

[WizardofOz]

It's always surprised me how often politicians promise "change", and then never propose anything that fundamentally does represent change. That said, on policies of war, peace, and diplomacy, I think the Obama administration has represented a pretty big change. We'll see if any of it sticks.

Any specifics?

Oh, I intend to. That's why I took up the conversation.

:thumb:

I think it's a mistake to ignore personality. The President makes myriad small calls every day that we barely talk about, and in many cases don't know about. If the President is petulant, petty, self-obsessed, self-promoting as Trump shows all evidence of being, those calls are going to be, I think, objectively worse, and often not in the national interests.

Sure, I'll give Hilary a leg up there. For me, it's not enough to vote for her. There are far too many negatives.

It's hard to know which policies will be done and which won't. I agree that the wall is unlikely, but that doesn't mean we can't waste of ton of time, money, and effort on it. You're kinda assuming that we'll somehow elect a man and then ignore his signature issues completely.

The wall isn't happening. No way, no how. Mostly because Trump doesn't stand a chance in the general election but also because the idea itself is beyond jumping the shark.

So many ways, but you could start with the fact that one of them has repeatedly suggested that they might use nuclear weapons. Since that's largely under the President's command, I think we're forced to take it pretty seriously.

Of course every president 'might' use nuclear weapons. Clump is a neo-conservative war hawk with only nuanced difference in foreign policy. If that.

Sorry. I've been rather cynical since W.

 

[rexlunae]

Yes, America is finally seeing and hearing the countless lies and deception from crooked Hillary.

I don't know how long you've been paying attention to the Clintons, but it's hardly a new narrative. I remember the 1990s. And it's certainly true that Hillary Clinton is secretive and evasive, and willing to lie to the public at least in some cases for her own benefit. She's not someone I would pick for a natural politician, nor would I likely vote for her if I had a viable alternative.

The other side of that, though, is that the Right has been spinning lies about the Clintons for as long as they've been in politics. And Trump has continued to do that. So there's a good reason to be pretty skeptical of just about anything anyone says about the Clintons either way.

 

[patrick jane]

So there's a good reason to be pretty skeptical of just about anything anyone says about the Clintons either way.

"I never had sexual relations with that woman. Never. I did not tell anyone to lie etc . . ."

 

[rexlunae]

Any specifics?

Cuba policy. Sixty years of hostility with a near neighbor could actually end, and I don't think there are a lot of politicians who would have taken up that agreement.

Iraq. Whatever you think of the outcomes, the decision to respect the previous agreement for the timeline for withdrawal rather than negotiate some new timeline was certainly consequential. And then, persuading Nouri al-Maliki to resign as prime minister was also consequential.

Anti-LGBT discrimination in the military.

Sure, I'll give Hilary a leg up there. For me, it's not enough to vote for her. There are far too many negatives.

I can understand the negatives. But compared to the other side?

The wall isn't happening. No way, no how.

I agree. But that doesn't mean we won't waste a ton of time and money on it.

Mostly because Trump doesn't stand a chance in the general election but also because the idea itself is beyond jumping the shark.

Why vote for a candidate who consistently jumps the shark?

Of course every president 'might' use nuclear weapons. Clump is a neo-conservative war hawk with only nuanced difference in foreign policy. If that.

Sorry. I've been rather cynical since W.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any politician of either party willing to suggest that they "might" use nuclear weapons. It is extremely dangerous, even to suggest it. Of course, it is an extreme contingency option, maybe, but any suggestion that they might come into use makes it a lot harder to preempt proliferation, and proliferation is extremely dangerous. Trump is the exception.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Where do you live?

Mountainous southeast fifteen miles away from a 65,000 population center .

 

[rexlunae]

"I never had sexual relations with that woman. Never. I did not tell anyone to lie etc . . ."

Sure. It helps when he plays into the narrative. But that was Bill.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I live in a very conservative place, actually. A diverse place, but conservative. When I lived in North Dakota, most of the (few) homeless were white. That was in line with the demography of the area. Now I live in a state with a majority-Hispanic population with significant numbers of black people and white people, and it seems like most of the homeless are also Hispanic, with some black people and some white people thrown in the mix.

And I get around a lot.

I get around a lot too but 90% of the highway exit panhandlers are white. Same under bridges. Only in the inner city of major cities do I see homeless blacks. I have yet to run into a homeless Hispanic. The reason I believe is the non assimilation of Hispanics with the degraded, disgusting white population. I'm talking about the disintegration of the white family over the last 50 years. Hispanics could see what they had was much better than the culture who lived nearby.

A solid family is a strong protection against economic troubles.

 

[patrick jane]

Where do you live?

It's Top Secret

 

[rexlunae]

I get around a lot too but 90% of the highway exit panhandlers are white. Same under bridges. Only in the inner city of major cities do I see homeless blacks. I have yet to run into a homeless Hispanic. The reason I believe is the non assimilation of Hispanics with the degraded, disgusting white population. I'm talking about the disintegration of the white family over the last 50 years. Hispanics could see what they had was much better than the culture who lived nearby.

A solid family is a strong protection against economic troubles.

I don't know that there's a lot of value in continuing to trade anecdotes on this subject...because there is actual data.

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/minorities.html

People of color – particularly African-Americans – are a minority that is particularly overrepresented. According the PBS Homeless Fact and Figures ’07, 41% are non-Hispanic whites (compared to 76% of the general population), 40% are African Americans (compared to 11% of the general population) 11% are Hispanic (compared to 9% of the general population) and 8% percent are Native American (compared to 1% of the general population).

And then there's this:

Like the total U.S. population, though, the ethnic makeup of homeless populations varies according to geographic location. For example,people experiencing homelessness in rural areas are more likely to be white, female, married, currently working, homeless for the first time, and homeless for a shorter period of time (Fisher, 2005); homelessness among Native Americans and migrant workers is also largely a rural phenomenon.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I don't know that there's a lot of value in continuing to trade anecdotes on this subject...because there is actual data.

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/minorities.html

People of color – particularly African-Americans – are a minority that is particularly overrepresented. According the PBS Homeless Fact and Figures ’07, 41% are non-Hispanic whites (compared to 76% of the general population), 40% are African Americans (compared to 11% of the general population) 11% are Hispanic (compared to 9% of the general population) and 8% percent are Native American (compared to 1% of the general population).

And then there's this:

Like the total U.S. population, though, the ethnic makeup of homeless populations varies according to geographic location. For example,people experiencing homelessness in rural areas are more likely to be white, female, married, currently working, homeless for the first time, and homeless for a shorter period of time (Fisher, 2005); homelessness among Native Americans and migrant workers is also largely a rural phenomenon.

You to ask yourself how they got there. Was it because of racism? Was it a personal failure? Or was it because of economics? I get the feeling that uneducated, middle-aged blue collar whites have gotten the worst of what has happened to the low skill job market. The growing decay of the white family has also destroyed these guys safety net. You cannot say the people listed above have any so called white privilege at all.

 

[rexlunae]

You to ask yourself how they got there. Was it because of racism? Was it a personal failure? Or was it because of economics?

All relevant questions, to be sure. But regardless it should tell you that as bad as it is for the white working class, it's worse for racial minorities. And in many cases, it always has been.

I get the feeling that uneducated, middle-aged blue collar whites have gotten the worst of what has happened to the low skill job market.

You should listen to your presidential candidate a bit more on that point. Black workers were hit worse in the Great Recession than white workers, and the recovery of those jobs has been a lot slower. He's been talking about that, and he's correct in as much as he's citing the statistics.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2015...ctor-job-losses-during-recession-study-finds/
http://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org/black-economic-gains-reversed-in-great-recession/

Meanwhile, while men took the deepest cuts in the recession, they also experienced the most job growth after it, so they've come out net ahead of women overall.

The growing decay of the white family has also destroyed these guys safety net.

I'm not sure I follow that. The men-as-breadwinner model meant that if a man lost his job, not only did it impact him, but his wife and kids. Women didn't work, so there was no secondary income.

You cannot say the people listed above have any so called white privilege at all.

You can be down on your luck and still incredibly privileged. Privilege isn't about how much fortune you've had in your life, but rather how easy it is for you to change your fortune. It's certainly true that we've closed many paths to economic progress for everyone, but being black is still an impediment to material success that shows pretty clearly in the numbers.

 

[patrick jane]

Sure. It helps when he plays into the narrative. But that was Bill.

"I never sent or received anything marked classified" - Bill and Hillary are the same entity