I didn't say juvenile crime is on the rise. Just that some of the factors that contribute to crime are (and actually, some of them are on a slight decline, but no where near where they were 30 or 40 years ago). There are lots of other factors of course. Every source about homes I've ever seen always state poverty and broken homes are more common with crimes. These are the first 3 Google searches with broken homes, all state it as a contributing factor in crime. I don't think I've ever heard anyone actually deny a connection between the two before.
There’s definitely a correllation, but I guess I’m wondering about What people’s next step in their thinking is. To me what’s important is how kids and parent’s are successful in a single parent home, because obviously this happens. The kid’s success can depend a lot on whether or not they’re in poverty, access to resources and opportunity, and having other quality relationships where they feel connected.
What irks me is that often a conservative looks at the single parent home statistic from a good ol days myth perspective and start coming down on feminist ideals and encourage outdated gender roles in some attempt to maintain the traditional nuclear family.
I don't think conservatives look down on feminist ideas. Half of the group you're referring to are women. I think many do look down on bad decisions. They look down on the dead-beat dads and the 20-something single mom with 6 kids and no way to support them. But I would disagree that they look down the feminist ideas.It is very difficult financially to have a stay-at-home-mom these days, and most conservative households have working moms.
There’s a large group, that includes conservative women, who reject the feminist label because of what they associate with it. It includes being pro-choice, but they also see it as a direct attack on the family. This is all woven into conservative Christianity. It a reason a lot of Republicans rail against public assistance. They claim the government is trying to replace the family. They associate a lot of societal ills with single parent households, so naturally this is just another way we liberals are destroying the country.
And while the majority of women are left or lean left, the majority of white women voted for trump.
I agree with that bolded part. I don't think a large portion of conservatives however rail against public assistance for that reason. I don't have any data to back this it, its just my opinion that most are against excessive government assistance, because so many of us know multiple people who refuse jobs to stay on unemployment, survive off welfare so there's no motivation to get a job. Obviously that isn't everyone, or even most. I couldn't find any reliable data on nhow many on unemployment turn down jobs because those numbers are not recorded. But I know several close friends who took them exactly 2 years to find a job when unemployment was raised to 2 years, I know several friends in management who couldn't fill positions in 2008 when the crash happened because no one would accept the job when unemployment paid so well. Its not about fearing the government is replacement the family, its not wanting to help those who don't want to help themselves.
In NYS, unemployment doesnt cover minimum wage.
Does that "data" impact your opinion?
Yeah, I’m pretty doubtful about that, too.
And I think two different issues are being conflated in mace’s post. “Unemployment insurance” generally refers to a program that the employee has paid into and is then eligible for after losing a job through no fault of their own, like being laid off. In Canada it’s a certain percentage of your prior salary with a pretty low cap, so not particularly lucrative. However, social assistance, which is more what conservatives generally rail against, is so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it if they had any chance of working. Here in BC the basic social assistance payment monthly is hundreds of dollars below just the lowest monthly rental properties, let alone other costs.
Why would unemployment not covering minimum wage change my opinion? Seems unrelated to my comment. My comment was conservatives aren't against helping people, but are against excessive handouts. And from my understanding, unemployment is based off of previous wages. Does no one else really not know anyone who has taken advantage of the system? every time this topic comes up on other threads I see many posts similar to that of "so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it." That is 100% not true. I'm not saying the majority do, but there are definitely plenty who do. I know I said unemployment as an example, but I was referring to all forms of assistance. My ex-girlfriend's father and 2 very close friends from college all took 2 years to find a job when unemployment was increased to 2 years. They all 3 rarely applied to jobs and turned down others because why work 40 hours a week to make 3k, when you can go to the beach every day and hang out and make $1800? I had a roommate who was on disability and got $900 every 2 weeks. Her disability was ADD and was very capable of working. She turned down jobs because she would lose disability of she got hired. In fact, she took jobs all the time that paid cash because she didn't have to report that. My wife was a big sister, he little sister lived with her mom and grandma, all who openly stated why should they try to work when the government pays for their housing and food? It was so obvious even the daughter at 10 and 12 years old was saying thing slike she doesn;t need school or jobs because the government will pay her like her mom. The situation was very much like the movie "Precious" if you've never seen it, that homelife definitely does exist. A lot of the times these situations people will chose to work part time so they can still qualify for benefits, or take cash jobs so they don't report them. Don't get me wrong, many or most getting assistance need it, but am I really the only one who believes there are people who take advantage of free money?
Because if unemployment pays less than minimum wage, noone with family responsibilities is going to chose that option over a job commensurate with their experience. That also means it's challenging to call it an "excessive" amount of money.
Those that know the horrors of getting downsized know that the longer you stay on unemployment - many recruiters can tag you as an undesireable candidate.
We can also find comparable examples of the military wasting taxpayer money, or mercenary contractors gouging taxpayers. Does that mean we should eliminate all defense spending?
Who cares if some bum is truly abusing the UI? It's not as if they are chillin' in Aspen while the rest of the hard working people are slaving away. UI benefits do not make people rich.
The overwhelming majority of people on UI are desperate to get off it and need it. If you took it away... eesh.
The post above mentioned abuse in the military branch of government- a point well scored. You can find abuse anywhere you look, but that doesn't mean the program is garbage- it means the abuser is.
I didn't say juvenile crime is on the rise. Just that some of the factors that contribute to crime are (and actually, some of them are on a slight decline, but no where near where they were 30 or 40 years ago). There are lots of other factors of course.
There’s definitely a correllation, but I guess I’m wondering about What people’s next step in their thinking is. To me what’s important is how kids and parent’s are successful in a single parent home, because obviously this happens. The kid’s success can depend a lot on whether or not they’re in poverty, access to resources and opportunity, and having other quality relationships where they feel connected.
What irks me is that often a conservative looks at the single parent home statistic from a good ol days myth perspective and start coming down on feminist ideals and encourage outdated gender roles in some attempt to maintain the traditional nuclear family.
I don't think conservatives look down on feminist ideas. Half of the group you're referring to are women. I think many do look down on bad decisions. They look down on the dead-beat dads and the 20-something single mom with 6 kids and no way to support them. But I would disagree that they look down the feminist ideas.It is very difficult financially to have a stay-at-home-mom these days, and most conservative households have working moms.
There’s a large group, that includes conservative women, who reject the feminist label because of what they associate with it. It includes being pro-choice, but they also see it as a direct attack on the family. This is all woven into conservative Christianity. It a reason a lot of Republicans rail against public assistance. They claim the government is trying to replace the family. They associate a lot of societal ills with single parent households, so naturally this is just another way we liberals are destroying the country.
And while the majority of women are left or lean left, the majority of white women voted for trump.
I agree with that bolded part. I don't think a large portion of conservatives however rail against public assistance for that reason. I don't have any data to back this it, its just my opinion that most are against excessive government assistance, because so many of us know multiple people who refuse jobs to stay on unemployment, survive off welfare so there's no motivation to get a job. Obviously that isn't everyone, or even most. I couldn't find any reliable data on nhow many on unemployment turn down jobs because those numbers are not recorded. But I know several close friends who took them exactly 2 years to find a job when unemployment was raised to 2 years, I know several friends in management who couldn't fill positions in 2008 when the crash happened because no one would accept the job when unemployment paid so well. Its not about fearing the government is replacement the family, its not wanting to help those who don't want to help themselves.
In NYS, unemployment doesnt cover minimum wage.
Does that "data" impact your opinion?
Yeah, I’m pretty doubtful about that, too.
And I think two different issues are being conflated in mace’s post. “Unemployment insurance” generally refers to a program that the employee has paid into and is then eligible for after losing a job through no fault of their own, like being laid off. In Canada it’s a certain percentage of your prior salary with a pretty low cap, so not particularly lucrative. However, social assistance, which is more what conservatives generally rail against, is so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it if they had any chance of working. Here in BC the basic social assistance payment monthly is hundreds of dollars below just the lowest monthly rental properties, let alone other costs.
Why would unemployment not covering minimum wage change my opinion? Seems unrelated to my comment. My comment was conservatives aren't against helping people, but are against excessive handouts. And from my understanding, unemployment is based off of previous wages. Does no one else really not know anyone who has taken advantage of the system? every time this topic comes up on other threads I see many posts similar to that of "so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it." That is 100% not true. I'm not saying the majority do, but there are definitely plenty who do. I know I said unemployment as an example, but I was referring to all forms of assistance. My ex-girlfriend's father and 2 very close friends from college all took 2 years to find a job when unemployment was increased to 2 years. They all 3 rarely applied to jobs and turned down others because why work 40 hours a week to make 3k, when you can go to the beach every day and hang out and make $1800? I had a roommate who was on disability and got $900 every 2 weeks. Her disability was ADD and was very capable of working. She turned down jobs because she would lose disability of she got hired. In fact, she took jobs all the time that paid cash because she didn't have to report that. My wife was a big sister, he little sister lived with her mom and grandma, all who openly stated why should they try to work when the government pays for their housing and food? It was so obvious even the daughter at 10 and 12 years old was saying thing slike she doesn;t need school or jobs because the government will pay her like her mom. The situation was very much like the movie "Precious" if you've never seen it, that homelife definitely does exist. A lot of the times these situations people will chose to work part time so they can still qualify for benefits, or take cash jobs so they don't report them. Don't get me wrong, many or most getting assistance need it, but am I really the only one who believes there are people who take advantage of free money?
Because if unemployment pays less than minimum wage, noone with family responsibilities is going to chose that option over a job commensurate with their experience. That also means it's challenging to call it an "excessive" amount of money.
Those that know the horrors of getting downsized know that the longer you stay on unemployment - many recruiters can tag you as an undesireable candidate.
We can also find comparable examples of the military wasting taxpayer money, or mercenary contractors gouging taxpayers. Does that mean we should eliminate all defense spending?
Sure, if you're a responsible member of society and the head of a household then they'd be far less likely to chose unemployment. And I agree, it makes you a less desirable candidate when you have huge gaps in your resume. That doesn't stop some people from still taking advantage of the "free money," especially those who are not the sole income for a large family. But, with maybe the exception of areas where unemployment is $15, it very is often more than minimum wage. And with rent controlled apartments and subsidized housing it makes it possible to live off of very little. Again, I want to point out I dont think this is everyone. I'm just bringing it up because I've seen it stated multiple times that those people don't exist. Just because I think some take advantage of the system doesn't mean I don't think there is waste in other areas as well. There definitely is. Waste in military for sure, to even city officials. Many city jobs are 2 times over-staffed. 100 people working in a building that 50 can do just as efficiently. I agree completely, lots of wasted government money, not just on public assistance.
There’s 327 million people in our country. In 1950 there was like 150 million. Double all your crazies and whackos and get rid of the use of asylums by instead feeding them pills. You’re going to have a lot of deranged dangerous motherfuckers walking the streets.
we actually have more prisoners/population than back then, but I subscribe to the “there’s a shitload of crazy people these days” school of thought.
166,000 prison population in 1950 = .1% of total population
2,217,000 prisoners in 2013, total population 316mil= .7% incarcerated
There’s 327 million people in our country. In 1950 there was like 150 million. Double all your crazies and whackos and get rid of the use of asylums by instead feeding them pills. You’re going to have a lot of deranged dangerous motherfuckers walking the streets.
we actually have more prisoners/population than back then, but I subscribe to the “there’s a shitload of crazy people these days” school of thought.
166,000 prison population in 1950 = .1% of total population
2,217,000 prisoners in 2013, total population 316mil= .7% incarcerated
It’s true that the US does incarcerate a much higher percentage of its population than most other countries, particularly those with comparable economies. And it’s true that a large chunk of the prison population has mental illness, mostly due to pathetically inadequate mental health services. But it is absolutely not true that the majority of violent people are mentally ill, or that mental illness causes your rash of gun violence.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I didn't say juvenile crime is on the rise. Just that some of the factors that contribute to crime are (and actually, some of them are on a slight decline, but no where near where they were 30 or 40 years ago). There are lots of other factors of course. Every source about homes I've ever seen always state poverty and broken homes are more common with crimes. These are the first 3 Google searches with broken homes, all state it as a contributing factor in crime. I don't think I've ever heard anyone actually deny a connection between the two before.
There’s definitely a correllation, but I guess I’m wondering about What people’s next step in their thinking is. To me what’s important is how kids and parent’s are successful in a single parent home, because obviously this happens. The kid’s success can depend a lot on whether or not they’re in poverty, access to resources and opportunity, and having other quality relationships where they feel connected.
What irks me is that often a conservative looks at the single parent home statistic from a good ol days myth perspective and start coming down on feminist ideals and encourage outdated gender roles in some attempt to maintain the traditional nuclear family.
I don't think conservatives look down on feminist ideas. Half of the group you're referring to are women. I think many do look down on bad decisions. They look down on the dead-beat dads and the 20-something single mom with 6 kids and no way to support them. But I would disagree that they look down the feminist ideas.It is very difficult financially to have a stay-at-home-mom these days, and most conservative households have working moms.
There’s a large group, that includes conservative women, who reject the feminist label because of what they associate with it. It includes being pro-choice, but they also see it as a direct attack on the family. This is all woven into conservative Christianity. It a reason a lot of Republicans rail against public assistance. They claim the government is trying to replace the family. They associate a lot of societal ills with single parent households, so naturally this is just another way we liberals are destroying the country.
And while the majority of women are left or lean left, the majority of white women voted for trump.
I agree with that bolded part. I don't think a large portion of conservatives however rail against public assistance for that reason. I don't have any data to back this it, its just my opinion that most are against excessive government assistance, because so many of us know multiple people who refuse jobs to stay on unemployment, survive off welfare so there's no motivation to get a job. Obviously that isn't everyone, or even most. I couldn't find any reliable data on nhow many on unemployment turn down jobs because those numbers are not recorded. But I know several close friends who took them exactly 2 years to find a job when unemployment was raised to 2 years, I know several friends in management who couldn't fill positions in 2008 when the crash happened because no one would accept the job when unemployment paid so well. Its not about fearing the government is replacement the family, its not wanting to help those who don't want to help themselves.
In NYS, unemployment doesnt cover minimum wage.
Does that "data" impact your opinion?
Yeah, I’m pretty doubtful about that, too.
And I think two different issues are being conflated in mace’s post. “Unemployment insurance” generally refers to a program that the employee has paid into and is then eligible for after losing a job through no fault of their own, like being laid off. In Canada it’s a certain percentage of your prior salary with a pretty low cap, so not particularly lucrative. However, social assistance, which is more what conservatives generally rail against, is so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it if they had any chance of working. Here in BC the basic social assistance payment monthly is hundreds of dollars below just the lowest monthly rental properties, let alone other costs.
Why would unemployment not covering minimum wage change my opinion? Seems unrelated to my comment. My comment was conservatives aren't against helping people, but are against excessive handouts. And from my understanding, unemployment is based off of previous wages. Does no one else really not know anyone who has taken advantage of the system? every time this topic comes up on other threads I see many posts similar to that of "so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it." That is 100% not true. I'm not saying the majority do, but there are definitely plenty who do. I know I said unemployment as an example, but I was referring to all forms of assistance. My ex-girlfriend's father and 2 very close friends from college all took 2 years to find a job when unemployment was increased to 2 years. They all 3 rarely applied to jobs and turned down others because why work 40 hours a week to make 3k, when you can go to the beach every day and hang out and make $1800? I had a roommate who was on disability and got $900 every 2 weeks. Her disability was ADD and was very capable of working. She turned down jobs because she would lose disability of she got hired. In fact, she took jobs all the time that paid cash because she didn't have to report that. My wife was a big sister, he little sister lived with her mom and grandma, all who openly stated why should they try to work when the government pays for their housing and food? It was so obvious even the daughter at 10 and 12 years old was saying thing slike she doesn;t need school or jobs because the government will pay her like her mom. The situation was very much like the movie "Precious" if you've never seen it, that homelife definitely does exist. A lot of the times these situations people will chose to work part time so they can still qualify for benefits, or take cash jobs so they don't report them. Don't get me wrong, many or most getting assistance need it, but am I really the only one who believes there are people who take advantage of free money?
Conservatives, worried about someone who games the system for a few thousand but can then vote for a guy who has been gaming the system for millions.
There’s 327 million people in our country. In 1950 there was like 150 million. Double all your crazies and whackos and get rid of the use of asylums by instead feeding them pills. You’re going to have a lot of deranged dangerous motherfuckers walking the streets.
we actually have more prisoners/population than back then, but I subscribe to the “there’s a shitload of crazy people these days” school of thought.
166,000 prison population in 1950 = .1% of total population
2,217,000 prisoners in 2013, total population 316mil= .7% incarcerated
It’s true that the US does incarcerate a much higher percentage of its population than most other countries, particularly those with comparable economies. And it’s true that a large chunk of the prison population has mental illness, mostly due to pathetically inadequate mental health services. But it is absolutely not true that the majority of violent people are mentally ill, or that mental illness causes your rash of gun violence.
Well it depends on your definition of mental illness. I would say that a violent person more often than not is crazy. Crazy in my use doesn’t necessarily mean mentally ill though because our system needs to fit them into some sort of box or criteria for them to be “mentally ill.” I still maintain that when you have 320 million people you’re going to have twice as many fucked up people and dangerous outcomes (guns or not) than you would have with 150 mil.
There’s 327 million people in our country. In 1950 there was like 150 million. Double all your crazies and whackos and get rid of the use of asylums by instead feeding them pills. You’re going to have a lot of deranged dangerous motherfuckers walking the streets.
we actually have more prisoners/population than back then, but I subscribe to the “there’s a shitload of crazy people these days” school of thought.
166,000 prison population in 1950 = .1% of total population
2,217,000 prisoners in 2013, total population 316mil= .7% incarcerated
It’s true that the US does incarcerate a much higher percentage of its population than most other countries, particularly those with comparable economies. And it’s true that a large chunk of the prison population has mental illness, mostly due to pathetically inadequate mental health services. But it is absolutely not true that the majority of violent people are mentally ill, or that mental illness causes your rash of gun violence.
People throw out the mental illness label a lot, but there’s no real consensus on the definition. Often it’s used when someone does something extreme and outside the norm.
There’s 327 million people in our country. In 1950 there was like 150 million. Double all your crazies and whackos and get rid of the use of asylums by instead feeding them pills. You’re going to have a lot of deranged dangerous motherfuckers walking the streets.
we actually have more prisoners/population than back then, but I subscribe to the “there’s a shitload of crazy people these days” school of thought.
166,000 prison population in 1950 = .1% of total population
2,217,000 prisoners in 2013, total population 316mil= .7% incarcerated
It’s true that the US does incarcerate a much higher percentage of its population than most other countries, particularly those with comparable economies. And it’s true that a large chunk of the prison population has mental illness, mostly due to pathetically inadequate mental health services. But it is absolutely not true that the majority of violent people are mentally ill, or that mental illness causes your rash of gun violence.
Well it depends on your definition of mental illness. I would say that a violent person more often than not is crazy. Crazy in my use doesn’t necessarily mean mentally ill though because our system needs to fit them into some sort of box or criteria for them to be “mentally ill.” I still maintain that when you have 320 million people you’re going to have twice as many fucked up people and dangerous outcomes (guns or not) than you would have with 150 mil.
I suppose you can use the word “crazy” to mean whatever you want, but that doesn’t actually help anyone’s understanding of the situation or advance any solutions. It just further stigmatizes the mentally ill and removes blame from where it actually needs to land, since it lets people just throw up their hands and say “what can you do? They’re crazy”.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
There’s 327 million people in our country. In 1950 there was like 150 million. Double all your crazies and whackos and get rid of the use of asylums by instead feeding them pills. You’re going to have a lot of deranged dangerous motherfuckers walking the streets.
we actually have more prisoners/population than back then, but I subscribe to the “there’s a shitload of crazy people these days” school of thought.
166,000 prison population in 1950 = .1% of total population
2,217,000 prisoners in 2013, total population 316mil= .7% incarcerated
It’s true that the US does incarcerate a much higher percentage of its population than most other countries, particularly those with comparable economies. And it’s true that a large chunk of the prison population has mental illness, mostly due to pathetically inadequate mental health services. But it is absolutely not true that the majority of violent people are mentally ill, or that mental illness causes your rash of gun violence.
Well it depends on your definition of mental illness. I would say that a violent person more often than not is crazy. Crazy in my use doesn’t necessarily mean mentally ill though because our system needs to fit them into some sort of box or criteria for them to be “mentally ill.” I still maintain that when you have 320 million people you’re going to have twice as many fucked up people and dangerous outcomes (guns or not) than you would have with 150 mil.
I suppose you can use the word “crazy” to mean whatever you want, but that doesn’t actually help anyone’s understanding of the situation or advance any solutions. It just further stigmatizes the mentally ill and removes blame from where it actually needs to land, since it lets people just throw up their hands and say “what can you do? They’re crazy”.
True that. Unfortunately that’s how I deal with it! “That dude’s crazy” usually is enough for me
I didn't say juvenile crime is on the rise. Just that some of the factors that contribute to crime are (and actually, some of them are on a slight decline, but no where near where they were 30 or 40 years ago). There are lots of other factors of course. Every source about homes I've ever seen always state poverty and broken homes are more common with crimes. These are the first 3 Google searches with broken homes, all state it as a contributing factor in crime. I don't think I've ever heard anyone actually deny a connection between the two before.
There’s definitely a correllation, but I guess I’m wondering about What people’s next step in their thinking is. To me what’s important is how kids and parent’s are successful in a single parent home, because obviously this happens. The kid’s success can depend a lot on whether or not they’re in poverty, access to resources and opportunity, and having other quality relationships where they feel connected.
What irks me is that often a conservative looks at the single parent home statistic from a good ol days myth perspective and start coming down on feminist ideals and encourage outdated gender roles in some attempt to maintain the traditional nuclear family.
I don't think conservatives look down on feminist ideas. Half of the group you're referring to are women. I think many do look down on bad decisions. They look down on the dead-beat dads and the 20-something single mom with 6 kids and no way to support them. But I would disagree that they look down the feminist ideas.It is very difficult financially to have a stay-at-home-mom these days, and most conservative households have working moms.
There’s a large group, that includes conservative women, who reject the feminist label because of what they associate with it. It includes being pro-choice, but they also see it as a direct attack on the family. This is all woven into conservative Christianity. It a reason a lot of Republicans rail against public assistance. They claim the government is trying to replace the family. They associate a lot of societal ills with single parent households, so naturally this is just another way we liberals are destroying the country.
And while the majority of women are left or lean left, the majority of white women voted for trump.
I agree with that bolded part. I don't think a large portion of conservatives however rail against public assistance for that reason. I don't have any data to back this it, its just my opinion that most are against excessive government assistance, because so many of us know multiple people who refuse jobs to stay on unemployment, survive off welfare so there's no motivation to get a job. Obviously that isn't everyone, or even most. I couldn't find any reliable data on nhow many on unemployment turn down jobs because those numbers are not recorded. But I know several close friends who took them exactly 2 years to find a job when unemployment was raised to 2 years, I know several friends in management who couldn't fill positions in 2008 when the crash happened because no one would accept the job when unemployment paid so well. Its not about fearing the government is replacement the family, its not wanting to help those who don't want to help themselves.
In NYS, unemployment doesnt cover minimum wage.
Does that "data" impact your opinion?
Yeah, I’m pretty doubtful about that, too.
And I think two different issues are being conflated in mace’s post. “Unemployment insurance” generally refers to a program that the employee has paid into and is then eligible for after losing a job through no fault of their own, like being laid off. In Canada it’s a certain percentage of your prior salary with a pretty low cap, so not particularly lucrative. However, social assistance, which is more what conservatives generally rail against, is so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it if they had any chance of working. Here in BC the basic social assistance payment monthly is hundreds of dollars below just the lowest monthly rental properties, let alone other costs.
Why would unemployment not covering minimum wage change my opinion? Seems unrelated to my comment. My comment was conservatives aren't against helping people, but are against excessive handouts. And from my understanding, unemployment is based off of previous wages. Does no one else really not know anyone who has taken advantage of the system? every time this topic comes up on other threads I see many posts similar to that of "so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it." That is 100% not true. I'm not saying the majority do, but there are definitely plenty who do. I know I said unemployment as an example, but I was referring to all forms of assistance. My ex-girlfriend's father and 2 very close friends from college all took 2 years to find a job when unemployment was increased to 2 years. They all 3 rarely applied to jobs and turned down others because why work 40 hours a week to make 3k, when you can go to the beach every day and hang out and make $1800? I had a roommate who was on disability and got $900 every 2 weeks. Her disability was ADD and was very capable of working. She turned down jobs because she would lose disability of she got hired. In fact, she took jobs all the time that paid cash because she didn't have to report that. My wife was a big sister, he little sister lived with her mom and grandma, all who openly stated why should they try to work when the government pays for their housing and food? It was so obvious even the daughter at 10 and 12 years old was saying thing slike she doesn;t need school or jobs because the government will pay her like her mom. The situation was very much like the movie "Precious" if you've never seen it, that homelife definitely does exist. A lot of the times these situations people will chose to work part time so they can still qualify for benefits, or take cash jobs so they don't report them. Don't get me wrong, many or most getting assistance need it, but am I really the only one who believes there are people who take advantage of free money?
Conservatives, worried about someone who games the system for a few thousand but can then vote for a guy who has been gaming the system for millions.
Thank you for adding thoughtful input that advanced the conversation.
I didn't say juvenile crime is on the rise. Just that some of the factors that contribute to crime are (and actually, some of them are on a slight decline, but no where near where they were 30 or 40 years ago). There are lots of other factors of course. Every source about homes I've ever seen always state poverty and broken homes are more common with crimes. These are the first 3 Google searches with broken homes, all state it as a contributing factor in crime. I don't think I've ever heard anyone actually deny a connection between the two before.
There’s definitely a correllation, but I guess I’m wondering about What people’s next step in their thinking is. To me what’s important is how kids and parent’s are successful in a single parent home, because obviously this happens. The kid’s success can depend a lot on whether or not they’re in poverty, access to resources and opportunity, and having other quality relationships where they feel connected.
What irks me is that often a conservative looks at the single parent home statistic from a good ol days myth perspective and start coming down on feminist ideals and encourage outdated gender roles in some attempt to maintain the traditional nuclear family.
I don't think conservatives look down on feminist ideas. Half of the group you're referring to are women. I think many do look down on bad decisions. They look down on the dead-beat dads and the 20-something single mom with 6 kids and no way to support them. But I would disagree that they look down the feminist ideas.It is very difficult financially to have a stay-at-home-mom these days, and most conservative households have working moms.
There’s a large group, that includes conservative women, who reject the feminist label because of what they associate with it. It includes being pro-choice, but they also see it as a direct attack on the family. This is all woven into conservative Christianity. It a reason a lot of Republicans rail against public assistance. They claim the government is trying to replace the family. They associate a lot of societal ills with single parent households, so naturally this is just another way we liberals are destroying the country.
And while the majority of women are left or lean left, the majority of white women voted for trump.
I agree with that bolded part. I don't think a large portion of conservatives however rail against public assistance for that reason. I don't have any data to back this it, its just my opinion that most are against excessive government assistance, because so many of us know multiple people who refuse jobs to stay on unemployment, survive off welfare so there's no motivation to get a job. Obviously that isn't everyone, or even most. I couldn't find any reliable data on nhow many on unemployment turn down jobs because those numbers are not recorded. But I know several close friends who took them exactly 2 years to find a job when unemployment was raised to 2 years, I know several friends in management who couldn't fill positions in 2008 when the crash happened because no one would accept the job when unemployment paid so well. Its not about fearing the government is replacement the family, its not wanting to help those who don't want to help themselves.
In NYS, unemployment doesnt cover minimum wage.
Does that "data" impact your opinion?
Yeah, I’m pretty doubtful about that, too.
And I think two different issues are being conflated in mace’s post. “Unemployment insurance” generally refers to a program that the employee has paid into and is then eligible for after losing a job through no fault of their own, like being laid off. In Canada it’s a certain percentage of your prior salary with a pretty low cap, so not particularly lucrative. However, social assistance, which is more what conservatives generally rail against, is so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it if they had any chance of working. Here in BC the basic social assistance payment monthly is hundreds of dollars below just the lowest monthly rental properties, let alone other costs.
Why would unemployment not covering minimum wage change my opinion? Seems unrelated to my comment. My comment was conservatives aren't against helping people, but are against excessive handouts. And from my understanding, unemployment is based off of previous wages. Does no one else really not know anyone who has taken advantage of the system? every time this topic comes up on other threads I see many posts similar to that of "so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it." That is 100% not true. I'm not saying the majority do, but there are definitely plenty who do. I know I said unemployment as an example, but I was referring to all forms of assistance. My ex-girlfriend's father and 2 very close friends from college all took 2 years to find a job when unemployment was increased to 2 years. They all 3 rarely applied to jobs and turned down others because why work 40 hours a week to make 3k, when you can go to the beach every day and hang out and make $1800? I had a roommate who was on disability and got $900 every 2 weeks. Her disability was ADD and was very capable of working. She turned down jobs because she would lose disability of she got hired. In fact, she took jobs all the time that paid cash because she didn't have to report that. My wife was a big sister, he little sister lived with her mom and grandma, all who openly stated why should they try to work when the government pays for their housing and food? It was so obvious even the daughter at 10 and 12 years old was saying thing slike she doesn;t need school or jobs because the government will pay her like her mom. The situation was very much like the movie "Precious" if you've never seen it, that homelife definitely does exist. A lot of the times these situations people will chose to work part time so they can still qualify for benefits, or take cash jobs so they don't report them. Don't get me wrong, many or most getting assistance need it, but am I really the only one who believes there are people who take advantage of free money?
Conservatives, worried about someone who games the system for a few thousand but can then vote for a guy who has been gaming the system for millions.
Thank you for adding thoughtful input that advanced the conversation.
But it's a valid point.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Has nothing to do with the conversation, so I disagree. Its a deflection to minimize someone's comments based on who they voted for. This side-topic began because someone said conservatives are against public assistance because they fear it takes away from family values. I said I disagree, there are against excessive amounts of it given to those who abuse the system. How does who I vote for fit anywhere into this? Again, its a deflection meant to dismiss comments because of who I voted for. I see it on every thread in the AMT "O you voted for Trump, so why should I listen to you then?" Seriously, its getting old at this point. Come up with some new material or add some insight into the conversation.
Has nothing to do with the conversation, so I disagree. Its a deflection to minimize someone's comments based on who they voted for. This side-topic began because someone said conservatives are against public assistance because they fear it takes away from family values. I said I disagree, there are against excessive amounts of it given to those who abuse the system. How does who I vote for fit anywhere into this? Again, its a deflection meant to dismiss comments because of who I voted for. I see it on every thread in the AMT "O you voted for Trump, so why should I listen to you then?" Seriously, its getting old at this point. Come up with some new material or add some insight into the conversation.
And dignin's comment was leading in the direction that conservatives are the ones giving the excessive amounts to those abusing the system (see: latest tax bill, e.g). So it has everything to do with the conversation. It's not a deflection to minimize comments based on who you voted for, it's a valid point. You can't claim conservatives are against excessive tax abuse when they are doing it for their buddies.
Maybe it is a case of Boy Who Cried Wolf. I see that reasoning on nearly every topic, so when I see the Trump accusation thrown out again it's hard to take that seriously. The left putting down someone's opinion because of their religious beliefs or who they voted for, that has become the standard response for many people. Look at the abortion thread, many people who voiced their reasoning for being pro-life were just criticized for being religious and made fun of for believing in the magic guy in the sky (even though religion had nothing to do with their reason), the other gun thread those who mention anything about gun rights are accused of having a small penis and compared to redneck Trump lovers, police thread if you state a conservative opinion then you're racist like Trump. There is an increasing trend to when someone disagrees, they don't respond with anything rational and give reason, but instead accuse them of some generic stereotype that is untrue and then make fun of their personal beliefs, And the final nail in the coffin of proving your point is to mention how the other one voted for Trump, and that somehow establishes your point in every topic.. You don't need to scroll far in many of the threads to see a lot of examples. I didn't see the connection in this case because it started about nuclear family values ad spread from there. I don't see how voting for Trump is connected to family values.
I didn't say juvenile crime is on the rise. Just that some of the factors that contribute to crime are (and actually, some of them are on a slight decline, but no where near where they were 30 or 40 years ago). There are lots of other factors of course. Every source about homes I've ever seen always state poverty and broken homes are more common with crimes. These are the first 3 Google searches with broken homes, all state it as a contributing factor in crime. I don't think I've ever heard anyone actually deny a connection between the two before.
There’s definitely a correllation, but I guess I’m wondering about What people’s next step in their thinking is. To me what’s important is how kids and parent’s are successful in a single parent home, because obviously this happens. The kid’s success can depend a lot on whether or not they’re in poverty, access to resources and opportunity, and having other quality relationships where they feel connected.
What irks me is that often a conservative looks at the single parent home statistic from a good ol days myth perspective and start coming down on feminist ideals and encourage outdated gender roles in some attempt to maintain the traditional nuclear family.
I don't think conservatives look down on feminist ideas. Half of the group you're referring to are women. I think many do look down on bad decisions. They look down on the dead-beat dads and the 20-something single mom with 6 kids and no way to support them. But I would disagree that they look down the feminist ideas.It is very difficult financially to have a stay-at-home-mom these days, and most conservative households have working moms.
There’s a large group, that includes conservative women, who reject the feminist label because of what they associate with it. It includes being pro-choice, but they also see it as a direct attack on the family. This is all woven into conservative Christianity. It a reason a lot of Republicans rail against public assistance. They claim the government is trying to replace the family. They associate a lot of societal ills with single parent households, so naturally this is just another way we liberals are destroying the country.
And while the majority of women are left or lean left, the majority of white women voted for trump.
I agree with that bolded part. I don't think a large portion of conservatives however rail against public assistance for that reason. I don't have any data to back this it, its just my opinion that most are against excessive government assistance, because so many of us know multiple people who refuse jobs to stay on unemployment, survive off welfare so there's no motivation to get a job. Obviously that isn't everyone, or even most. I couldn't find any reliable data on nhow many on unemployment turn down jobs because those numbers are not recorded. But I know several close friends who took them exactly 2 years to find a job when unemployment was raised to 2 years, I know several friends in management who couldn't fill positions in 2008 when the crash happened because no one would accept the job when unemployment paid so well. Its not about fearing the government is replacement the family, its not wanting to help those who don't want to help themselves.
In NYS, unemployment doesnt cover minimum wage.
Does that "data" impact your opinion?
Yeah, I’m pretty doubtful about that, too.
And I think two different issues are being conflated in mace’s post. “Unemployment insurance” generally refers to a program that the employee has paid into and is then eligible for after losing a job through no fault of their own, like being laid off. In Canada it’s a certain percentage of your prior salary with a pretty low cap, so not particularly lucrative. However, social assistance, which is more what conservatives generally rail against, is so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it if they had any chance of working. Here in BC the basic social assistance payment monthly is hundreds of dollars below just the lowest monthly rental properties, let alone other costs.
Why would unemployment not covering minimum wage change my opinion? Seems unrelated to my comment. My comment was conservatives aren't against helping people, but are against excessive handouts. And from my understanding, unemployment is based off of previous wages. Does no one else really not know anyone who has taken advantage of the system? every time this topic comes up on other threads I see many posts similar to that of "so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it." That is 100% not true. I'm not saying the majority do, but there are definitely plenty who do. I know I said unemployment as an example, but I was referring to all forms of assistance. My ex-girlfriend's father and 2 very close friends from college all took 2 years to find a job when unemployment was increased to 2 years. They all 3 rarely applied to jobs and turned down others because why work 40 hours a week to make 3k, when you can go to the beach every day and hang out and make $1800? I had a roommate who was on disability and got $900 every 2 weeks. Her disability was ADD and was very capable of working. She turned down jobs because she would lose disability of she got hired. In fact, she took jobs all the time that paid cash because she didn't have to report that. My wife was a big sister, he little sister lived with her mom and grandma, all who openly stated why should they try to work when the government pays for their housing and food? It was so obvious even the daughter at 10 and 12 years old was saying thing slike she doesn;t need school or jobs because the government will pay her like her mom. The situation was very much like the movie "Precious" if you've never seen it, that homelife definitely does exist. A lot of the times these situations people will chose to work part time so they can still qualify for benefits, or take cash jobs so they don't report them. Don't get me wrong, many or most getting assistance need it, but am I really the only one who believes there are people who take advantage of free money?
Conservatives, worried about someone who games the system for a few thousand but can then vote for a guy who has been gaming the system for millions.
Thank you for adding thoughtful input that advanced the conversation.
It actually holds some truth. Conservatives will focus on fraud without knowing the total amount it is, and occasionally make their ‘this is what’s wrong with out country’ proclimation, while others get a pass in the hopes of profits that are supposed to trucklw down.
Maybe it is a case of Boy Who Cried Wolf. I see that reasoning on nearly every topic, so when I see the Trump accusation thrown out again it's hard to take that seriously. The left putting down someone's opinion because of their religious beliefs or who they voted for, that has become the standard response for many people. Look at the abortion thread, many people who voiced their reasoning for being pro-life were just criticized for being religious, the other gun thread those who mention anything about gun rights are accused of having a small penis and compared to redneck Trump lovers, police thread if you state a conservative opinion then you're racist like Trump. There is an increasing trend to when someone disagrees, don't respond with anything rational and give reason, but instead accuse them of some generic stereotype that is untrue and then make fun of their personal beliefs. I didn't see the connection in this case because it started about nuclear family values ad spread from there. I don't see how voting for Trump is connected to family values.
I appreciate your input Mace. You are one of the few voicing reasonable opposing views and discussion points. The problem for most though is that a vote for Trump and those like him, is so contrary to what the conservative party is trying to stand behind that it's impossible not to point out the ridiculous irony. I would stand behind the same statement of a liberal who is hypocritical and countering their own stance.
You guys are all arguing because you think your side isn’t guilty of what you’re blaming the other for. Come on, call the kettle black. The comment was ridiculous and obviously just taking a shot at conservatives. People vote for criminals and shitbags all the time, both sides of the aisle. Completely asinine to act like one party is clean of the bullshit.
You guys are all arguing because you think your side isn’t guilty of what you’re blaming the other for. Come on, call the kettle black. The comment was ridiculous and obviously just taking a shot at conservatives. People vote for criminals and shitbags all the time, both sides of the aisle. Completely asinine to act like one party is clean of the bullshit.
Whataboutism doesn’t hold up in response to criticism of trump. This admin will go down as the most corrupt and dyfunctional in history.
You guys are all arguing because you think your side isn’t guilty of what you’re blaming the other for. Come on, call the kettle black. The comment was ridiculous and obviously just taking a shot at conservatives. People vote for criminals and shitbags all the time, both sides of the aisle. Completely asinine to act like one party is clean of the bullshit.
You guys are all arguing because you think your side isn’t guilty of what you’re blaming the other for. Come on, call the kettle black. The comment was ridiculous and obviously just taking a shot at conservatives. People vote for criminals and shitbags all the time, both sides of the aisle. Completely asinine to act like one party is clean of the bullshit.
The problem is that the complete corruption and disregard for the dignity of the office of the president has never been so extreme by either party. Sure, they have had equally bad presidents who make shitty decisions and policies, but for the most part, the entire office wasn't a complete garbage pile with bold faced lies told to us daily and then doubled down on by a terrible communications team. The best thing for conservatives to do would be to find a new voice for the party who has some dignity and respect as a person. It's not like the liberals have it figured out either, but they don't have a specific bad example (besides Hillary; still!) to bury them deeper.
You guys are all arguing because you think your side isn’t guilty of what you’re blaming the other for. Come on, call the kettle black. The comment was ridiculous and obviously just taking a shot at conservatives. People vote for criminals and shitbags all the time, both sides of the aisle. Completely asinine to act like one party is clean of the bullshit.
Both sides are not the same.
Bullshit. We have a coup in progress because one side is embarrassed they lost. Started back when Obama was in office. Deep state stuff- first they fucked the primary so she’d get through and then they made up documents in order to get fisa surveillence. It goes on and on, even having a partisan douche do an investigation on collusion (which isn’t even a crime) for 14 months only to have nothing found other than money issues that get 30 day sentences or whatever.
i don’t like government in general but both sides are dirty, so yes, both sides are the same.
You guys are all arguing because you think your side isn’t guilty of what you’re blaming the other for. Come on, call the kettle black. The comment was ridiculous and obviously just taking a shot at conservatives. People vote for criminals and shitbags all the time, both sides of the aisle. Completely asinine to act like one party is clean of the bullshit.
Both sides are not the same.
Bullshit. We have a coup in progress because one side is embarrassed they lost. Started back when Obama was in office. Deep state stuff- first they fucked the primary so she’d get through and then they made up documents in order to get fisa surveillence. It goes on and on, even having a partisan douche do an investigation on collusion (which isn’t even a crime) for 14 months only to have nothing found other than money issues that get 30 day sentences or whatever.
i don’t like government in general but both sides are dirty, so yes, both sides are the same.
Because you believe in conspiracy theories doesn’t make it so.
You guys are all arguing because you think your side isn’t guilty of what you’re blaming the other for. Come on, call the kettle black. The comment was ridiculous and obviously just taking a shot at conservatives. People vote for criminals and shitbags all the time, both sides of the aisle. Completely asinine to act like one party is clean of the bullshit.
Whataboutism doesn’t hold up in response to criticism of trump. This admin will go down as the most corrupt and dyfunctional in history.
Keep telling yourself that. Just like he’ll be impeached or they’ll find some evidence of collusion right?
Maybe it is a case of Boy Who Cried Wolf. I see that reasoning on nearly every topic, so when I see the Trump accusation thrown out again it's hard to take that seriously. The left putting down someone's opinion because of their religious beliefs or who they voted for, that has become the standard response for many people. Look at the abortion thread, many people who voiced their reasoning for being pro-life were just criticized for being religious, the other gun thread those who mention anything about gun rights are accused of having a small penis and compared to redneck Trump lovers, police thread if you state a conservative opinion then you're racist like Trump. There is an increasing trend to when someone disagrees, don't respond with anything rational and give reason, but instead accuse them of some generic stereotype that is untrue and then make fun of their personal beliefs. I didn't see the connection in this case because it started about nuclear family values ad spread from there. I don't see how voting for Trump is connected to family values.
I appreciate your input Mace. You are one of the few voicing reasonable opposing views and discussion points. The problem for most though is that a vote for Trump and those like him, is so contrary to what the conservative party is trying to stand behind that it's impossible not to point out the ridiculous irony. I would stand behind the same statement of a liberal who is hypocritical and countering their own stance.
I appreciate that. What you're forgetting though is Trump had the most unhappy voters-those who didn't like anyone but had to pick. That made up a lot of his "supporters." A lot of conservatives don't like Trump. I for many reasons don't regret my vote for Trump. I'm not convinced the other option would have been any better. That doesn't mean I can't wait for 3 years from now when Trump is out of office though. Just because they voted for him doesn't mean they stand behind him.
You guys are all arguing because you think your side isn’t guilty of what you’re blaming the other for. Come on, call the kettle black. The comment was ridiculous and obviously just taking a shot at conservatives. People vote for criminals and shitbags all the time, both sides of the aisle. Completely asinine to act like one party is clean of the bullshit.
Both sides are not the same.
Bullshit. We have a coup in progress because one side is embarrassed they lost. Started back when Obama was in office. Deep state stuff- first they fucked the primary so she’d get through and then they made up documents in order to get fisa surveillence. It goes on and on, even having a partisan douche do an investigation on collusion (which isn’t even a crime) for 14 months only to have nothing found other than money issues that get 30 day sentences or whatever.
i don’t like government in general but both sides are dirty, so yes, both sides are the same.
A coup? What are you talking about? Oh good god, not the "deep state" stuff from you too. You are losing me on the partisan stuff if you are referencing all these republicans who have been investigating a republican. I think what you really have is a conservative base trying to shake off the shit that tagged on to their ticket with Trump. He isn't what the party stands for. Ask most true conservatives.
Maybe it is a case of Boy Who Cried Wolf. I see that reasoning on nearly every topic, so when I see the Trump accusation thrown out again it's hard to take that seriously. The left putting down someone's opinion because of their religious beliefs or who they voted for, that has become the standard response for many people. Look at the abortion thread, many people who voiced their reasoning for being pro-life were just criticized for being religious, the other gun thread those who mention anything about gun rights are accused of having a small penis and compared to redneck Trump lovers, police thread if you state a conservative opinion then you're racist like Trump. There is an increasing trend to when someone disagrees, don't respond with anything rational and give reason, but instead accuse them of some generic stereotype that is untrue and then make fun of their personal beliefs. I didn't see the connection in this case because it started about nuclear family values ad spread from there. I don't see how voting for Trump is connected to family values.
I appreciate your input Mace. You are one of the few voicing reasonable opposing views and discussion points. The problem for most though is that a vote for Trump and those like him, is so contrary to what the conservative party is trying to stand behind that it's impossible not to point out the ridiculous irony. I would stand behind the same statement of a liberal who is hypocritical and countering their own stance.
I appreciate that. What you're forgetting though is Trump had the most unhappy voters-those who didn't like anyone but had to pick. That made up a lot of his "supporters." A lot of conservatives don't like Trump. I for many reasons don't regret my vote for Trump. I'm not convinced the other option would have been any better. That doesn't mean I can't wait for 3 years from now when Trump is out of office though. Just because they voted for him doesn't mean they stand behind him.
I can understand that reasoning, even though I don't agree with it, which is why we have so much separation right now. People are not willing to accept that many people vote based on 1 issue or the stance of the party as a whole, no matter who the candidate is. Informed Trump voters couldn't fathom a Hillary presidency and what that meant to conservatism and Hillary voters couldn't fathom anyone supporting Tump-ism and what that brought.
You guys are all arguing because you think your side isn’t guilty of what you’re blaming the other for. Come on, call the kettle black. The comment was ridiculous and obviously just taking a shot at conservatives. People vote for criminals and shitbags all the time, both sides of the aisle. Completely asinine to act like one party is clean of the bullshit.
Both sides are not the same.
Bullshit. We have a coup in progress because one side is embarrassed they lost. Started back when Obama was in office. Deep state stuff- first they fucked the primary so she’d get through and then they made up documents in order to get fisa surveillence. It goes on and on, even having a partisan douche do an investigation on collusion (which isn’t even a crime) for 14 months only to have nothing found other than money issues that get 30 day sentences or whatever.
i don’t like government in general but both sides are dirty, so yes, both sides are the same.
A coup? What are you talking about? Oh good god, not the "deep state" stuff from you too. You are losing me on the partisan stuff if you are referencing all these republicans who have been investigating a republican. I think what you really have is a conservative base trying to shake off the shit that tagged on to their ticket with Trump. He isn't what the party stands for. Ask most true conservatives.
I may have my tin foil hat on but I have no reason tNot o believe that both sides are still sides of the same coin.
Comments
Because if unemployment pays less than minimum wage, noone with family responsibilities is going to chose that option over a job commensurate with their experience. That also means it's challenging to call it an "excessive" amount of money.
Those that know the horrors of getting downsized know that the longer you stay on unemployment - many recruiters can tag you as an undesireable candidate.
We can also find comparable examples of the military wasting taxpayer money, or mercenary contractors gouging taxpayers. Does that mean we should eliminate all defense spending?
The overwhelming majority of people on UI are desperate to get off it and need it. If you took it away... eesh.
The post above mentioned abuse in the military branch of government- a point well scored. You can find abuse anywhere you look, but that doesn't mean the program is garbage- it means the abuser is.
That doesn't stop some people from still taking advantage of the "free money," especially those who are not the sole income for a large family.
But, with maybe the exception of areas where unemployment is $15, it very is often more than minimum wage. And with rent controlled apartments and subsidized housing it makes it possible to live off of very little.
Again, I want to point out I dont think this is everyone. I'm just bringing it up because I've seen it stated multiple times that those people don't exist.
Just because I think some take advantage of the system doesn't mean I don't think there is waste in other areas as well. There definitely is. Waste in military for sure, to even city officials. Many city jobs are 2 times over-staffed. 100 people working in a building that 50 can do just as efficiently. I agree completely, lots of wasted government money, not just on public assistance.
we actually have more prisoners/population than back then, but I subscribe to the “there’s a shitload of crazy people these days” school of thought.
166,000 prison population in 1950 = .1% of total population
2,217,000 prisoners in 2013, total population 316mil= .7% incarcerated
This side-topic began because someone said conservatives are against public assistance because they fear it takes away from family values. I said I disagree, there are against excessive amounts of it given to those who abuse the system.
How does who I vote for fit anywhere into this? Again, its a deflection meant to dismiss comments because of who I voted for. I see it on every thread in the AMT "O you voted for Trump, so why should I listen to you then?" Seriously, its getting old at this point. Come up with some new material or add some insight into the conversation.
I didn't see the connection in this case because it started about nuclear family values ad spread from there. I don't see how voting for Trump is connected to family values.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
i don’t like government in general but both sides are dirty, so yes, both sides are the same.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Keep telling yourself that. Just like he’ll be impeached or they’ll find some evidence of collusion right?
What you're forgetting though is Trump had the most unhappy voters-those who didn't like anyone but had to pick. That made up a lot of his "supporters." A lot of conservatives don't like Trump. I for many reasons don't regret my vote for Trump. I'm not convinced the other option would have been any better. That doesn't mean I can't wait for 3 years from now when Trump is out of office though. Just because they voted for him doesn't mean they stand behind him.