Is there anyone besides Trump who could SYMBOLICALLY appeal to WWC?

[Fuzzy Bear]

The WWC isn't a monolith.  A certain amount of the WWC is lost to the Democrats because they are primarily focused on social conservatism (guns, religious conservatism, immigration).  In this category, we can include most of the WWC in the South and Border States.

In Appalachia, there were two issues.  One was coal and energy, and the other was respect.  Trump promised them both.  The Democrats have hurt themselves with these folks by systematic insensitivity to their needs.  Trump gave them respect, and promised to protect their livelihoods. 

But the ones that were the real mind blowers were the WWC voters in WI, MI, PA, and MN.  These folks were Northerners and more likely to be unionized.  Here, what was needed was a candidate who viewed a feminist agenda to a working class agenda.  A significant number of these WWC voters have been divorced and have hefty child support payments to make.  Hillary's over-emphasis on respect for women, concern for "women and girls" endlessly, lectures on how "words matter" just let these people know that she didn't give a crap about them.  And while these guys have exes that may have been cheering for Hillary to keep 'em paying their child support, they also had a present significant other who was living lower on the hog because of the child support their husband/boyfriend had to pay. 

I'm not saying this is logical, and I'm certainly not defending child support deadbeats.  But people don't have to like sanctimony, and people can make decisions for themselves.  It IS possible to discuss the needs of women in ways that even chauvinistic males can pay attention to.  It's NOT possible for Hillary Clinton to pull that off, however.  She hates males, has a bias against them, and while I may give her some sympathy for what Bill has put her through, folks can figure out who is and isn't with them, and SHE wasn't with THEM.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

On topic (sorry), I don't think there's a way to appeal to the stereotypical WWC that switched from Democrat to republican without adopting some pretty unpleasant views. (Eg reversing on gay marriage,  mass deportations)

ETA: plus they'd have to go against welfare, killing it. Remember that the kinds of Democrats that win the WWC are people like Justice, Manchin, and Bill Clinton.

Trump didn't appeal to the WWC using that at all...

Mass deportation was literally one of the only consistent policies trump had.

Mass deportations? You mean enforcing the law? In fact, we're only deporting illegals who have committed crimes aside from illegal immigration; I wouldn't call that mass deportations.

There goes the far-left making a mountain out of a molehill.

that's BS. The current administration is deporting anyone it can. Even before, ICE would happily kidnap anyone they caught without citizenship papers, they just had to prioritize those who had committed a crime. This isn't nothing.

Source, please?

(TYT, HuffPost, Occupy Democrats, and others are not accurate in any sense)

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ice-deport-trump-20170517-story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/21/politics/dhs-immigration-guidance-detentions/index.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-deportation-force-20170412-story.html

The kind of source you would like
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/17/revealed-how-trump-will-speed-up-deportation-of-criminal-illegal-aliens/

Also, I like how you demand sources when you haven't given any.

That's because I didn't make any baseless claims.

Oh, also, nice job trying to imply I'm conservative. Look at my political matrix score, asshat.

Now then, moving on from your immature and petty attitude, let's talk about these sources, which I thank you for providing.

I read through them, and I still fail to see the problem. They broke the law; there are consequences for illegal actions. If it were up to me, everyone who broke our immigration laws would face the consequences. Just like how a murderer should face the consequences of their crime. It's pure justice.

I could make my PM score +10, +10, but I'd still be a liberal.

Your claim that only people with criminal records were being deported isn't self evident.

The legal code of the United States isn't a moral justification for anything.

[RINO Tom]

On topic (sorry), I don't think there's a way to appeal to the stereotypical WWC that switched from Democrat to republican without adopting some pretty unpleasant views. (Eg reversing on gay marriage,  mass deportations)

ETA: plus they'd have to go against welfare, killing it. Remember that the kinds of Democrats that win the WWC are people like Justice, Manchin, and Bill Clinton.

Trump didn't appeal to the WWC using that at all...

Mass deportation was literally one of the only consistent policies trump had.

Mass deportations? You mean enforcing the law? In fact, we're only deporting illegals who have committed crimes aside from illegal immigration; I wouldn't call that mass deportations.

There goes the far-left making a mountain out of a molehill.

that's BS. The current administration is deporting anyone it can. Even before, ICE would happily kidnap anyone they caught without citizenship papers, they just had to prioritize those who had committed a crime. This isn't nothing.

Source, please?

(TYT, HuffPost, Occupy Democrats, and others are not accurate in any sense)

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ice-deport-trump-20170517-story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/21/politics/dhs-immigration-guidance-detentions/index.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-deportation-force-20170412-story.html

The kind of source you would like
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/17/revealed-how-trump-will-speed-up-deportation-of-criminal-illegal-aliens/

Also, I like how you demand sources when you haven't given any.

That's because I didn't make any baseless claims.

Oh, also, nice job trying to imply I'm conservative. Look at my political matrix score, asshat.

Now then, moving on from your immature and petty attitude, let's talk about these sources, which I thank you for providing.

I read through them, and I still fail to see the problem. They broke the law; there are consequences for illegal actions. If it were up to me, everyone who broke our immigration laws would face the consequences. Just like how a murderer should face the consequences of their crime. It's pure justice.

I could make my PM score +10, +10, but I'd still be a liberal.

Your claim that only people with criminal records were being deported isn't self evident.

The legal code of the United States isn't a moral justification for anything.

A liberal who supports enforcing immigration laws - heck, even one that is downright intolerant of all immigrants, legal or not - is not a conservative.

[White Trash]

The WWC isn't a monolith.  A certain amount of the WWC is lost to the Democrats because they are primarily focused on social conservatism (guns, religious conservatism, immigration).  In this category, we can include most of the WWC in the South and Border States.

In Appalachia, there were two issues.  One was coal and energy, and the other was respect.  Trump promised them both.  The Democrats have hurt themselves with these folks by systematic insensitivity to their needs.  Trump gave them respect, and promised to protect their livelihoods. 

But the ones that were the real mind blowers were the WWC voters in WI, MI, PA, and MN.  These folks were Northerners and more likely to be unionized.  Here, what was needed was a candidate who viewed a feminist agenda to a working class agenda.  A significant number of these WWC voters have been divorced and have hefty child support payments to make.  Hillary's over-emphasis on respect for women, concern for "women and girls" endlessly, lectures on how "words matter" just let these people know that she didn't give a crap about them.  And while these guys have exes that may have been cheering for Hillary to keep 'em paying their child support, they also had a present significant other who was living lower on the hog because of the child support their husband/boyfriend had to pay. 

I'm not saying this is logical, and I'm certainly not defending child support deadbeats.  But people don't have to like sanctimony, and people can make decisions for themselves.  It IS possible to discuss the needs of women in ways that even chauvinistic males can pay attention to.  It's NOT possible for Hillary Clinton to pull that off, however.  She hates males, has a bias against them, and while I may give her some sympathy for what Bill has put her through, folks can figure out who is and isn't with them, and SHE wasn't with THEM.

I really doubt that child support payments were even a tertiary factor in Clinton doing poorly with the WWC. And the idea that a feminist agenda and working-class agenda are diametrically opposed is ridiculous.

[McGovernForPrez]

The WWC isn't a monolith.  A certain amount of the WWC is lost to the Democrats because they are primarily focused on social conservatism (guns, religious conservatism, immigration).  In this category, we can include most of the WWC in the South and Border States.

In Appalachia, there were two issues.  One was coal and energy, and the other was respect.  Trump promised them both.  The Democrats have hurt themselves with these folks by systematic insensitivity to their needs.  Trump gave them respect, and promised to protect their livelihoods. 

But the ones that were the real mind blowers were the WWC voters in WI, MI, PA, and MN.  These folks were Northerners and more likely to be unionized.  Here, what was needed was a candidate who viewed a feminist agenda to a working class agenda.  A significant number of these WWC voters have been divorced and have hefty child support payments to make.  Hillary's over-emphasis on respect for women, concern for "women and girls" endlessly, lectures on how "words matter" just let these people know that she didn't give a crap about them.  And while these guys have exes that may have been cheering for Hillary to keep 'em paying their child support, they also had a present significant other who was living lower on the hog because of the child support their husband/boyfriend had to pay. 

I'm not saying this is logical, and I'm certainly not defending child support deadbeats.  But people don't have to like sanctimony, and people can make decisions for themselves.  It IS possible to discuss the needs of women in ways that even chauvinistic males can pay attention to.  It's NOT possible for Hillary Clinton to pull that off, however.  She hates males, has a bias against them, and while I may give her some sympathy for what Bill has put her through, folks can figure out who is and isn't with them, and SHE wasn't with THEM.

I really doubt that child support payments were even a tertiary factor in Clinton doing poorly with the WWC. And the idea that a feminist agenda and working-class agenda are diametrically opposed is ridiculous.

Yeah, I'm so confused about the last point. The primary reasons Hillary lost with these voters was a mix of seriously poor honesty ratings, stances on free trade, and a campaign team so utterly incompetent that they laughed at campaign advice from BILL ING CLINTON. The guy who won Democrat dream state bingo TWICE. Who ignores the campaign advice of BILL ING CLINTON?!?!?!? I swear to God, it's sh**t like this that makes me hate being a Democrat.

[Lord Admirale]

The WWC isn't a monolith.  A certain amount of the WWC is lost to the Democrats because they are primarily focused on social conservatism (guns, religious conservatism, immigration).  In this category, we can include most of the WWC in the South and Border States.

In Appalachia, there were two issues.  One was coal and energy, and the other was respect.  Trump promised them both.  The Democrats have hurt themselves with these folks by systematic insensitivity to their needs.  Trump gave them respect, and promised to protect their livelihoods. 

But the ones that were the real mind blowers were the WWC voters in WI, MI, PA, and MN.  These folks were Northerners and more likely to be unionized.  Here, what was needed was a candidate who viewed a feminist agenda to a working class agenda.  A significant number of these WWC voters have been divorced and have hefty child support payments to make.  Hillary's over-emphasis on respect for women, concern for "women and girls" endlessly, lectures on how "words matter" just let these people know that she didn't give a crap about them.  And while these guys have exes that may have been cheering for Hillary to keep 'em paying their child support, they also had a present significant other who was living lower on the hog because of the child support their husband/boyfriend had to pay. 

I'm not saying this is logical, and I'm certainly not defending child support deadbeats.  But people don't have to like sanctimony, and people can make decisions for themselves.  It IS possible to discuss the needs of women in ways that even chauvinistic males can pay attention to.  It's NOT possible for Hillary Clinton to pull that off, however.  She hates males, has a bias against them, and while I may give her some sympathy for what Bill has put her through, folks can figure out who is and isn't with them, and SHE wasn't with THEM.

I really doubt that child support payments were even a tertiary factor in Clinton doing poorly with the WWC. And the idea that a feminist agenda and working-class agenda are diametrically opposed is ridiculous.

Yeah, I'm so confused about the last point. The primary reasons Hillary lost with these voters was a mix of seriously poor honesty ratings, stances on free trade, and a campaign team so utterly incompetent that they laughed at campaign advice from BILL ING CLINTON. The guy who won Democrat dream state bingo TWICE. Who ignores the campaign advice of BILL ING CLINTON?!?!?!? I swear to God, it's sh**t like this that makes me hate being a Democrat.

If Hillary was just like Bill, I think she'd win by a huge margin. But instead of getting in bed with Monica, she got in bed with Wall Street bankers and Hollywood celebrities, ignored the WWC, and acted like she already won.

It's also why I refuse to identify with the Democratic Party.

[Lord Admirale]

^ Yes, Bill Clinton, who gutted Glass-Steagall, appointed Robert Rubin & Larry Summers to head the Treasury, was totally in bed with the bankers unlike his wife!

You're so clueless, dude. And no, running on an steadfast liberal economic platform like Bill did is not the key to winning back working class voters. I mean, Jesus, is this 1996?

Someone is still lamenting the loss of Corbyn, me thinks.

Rather than debate me, you launch an ad hominem attack calling me clueless, not to mention you provide absolutely no base to your petty comment. Come back to me once you've gained the maturity higher than that of a middle schooler.

[Kingpoleon]

The WWC isn't a monolith.  A certain amount of the WWC is lost to the Democrats because they are primarily focused on social conservatism (guns, religious conservatism, immigration).  In this category, we can include most of the WWC in the South and Border States.

In Appalachia, there were two issues.  One was coal and energy, and the other was respect.  Trump promised them both.  The Democrats have hurt themselves with these folks by systematic insensitivity to their needs.  Trump gave them respect, and promised to protect their livelihoods. 

But the ones that were the real mind blowers were the WWC voters in WI, MI, PA, and MN.  These folks were Northerners and more likely to be unionized.  Here, what was needed was a candidate who viewed a feminist agenda to a working class agenda.  A significant number of these WWC voters have been divorced and have hefty child support payments to make.  Hillary's over-emphasis on respect for women, concern for "women and girls" endlessly, lectures on how "words matter" just let these people know that she didn't give a crap about them.  And while these guys have exes that may have been cheering for Hillary to keep 'em paying their child support, they also had a present significant other who was living lower on the hog because of the child support their husband/boyfriend had to pay. 

I'm not saying this is logical, and I'm certainly not defending child support deadbeats.  But people don't have to like sanctimony, and people can make decisions for themselves.  It IS possible to discuss the needs of women in ways that even chauvinistic males can pay attention to.  It's NOT possible for Hillary Clinton to pull that off, however.  She hates males, has a bias against them, and while I may give her some sympathy for what Bill has put her through, folks can figure out who is and isn't with them, and SHE wasn't with THEM.

Fuzzy Bear, I know it's hard to understand how big a deal rape is. But when one in four women are either raped or rape is attempted on them in their lifetime, we cannot say it is a female problem. 95-98% of rapists are men. This is a male problem. I know it's hard to listen to a "shrill" candidate, but even women() make good points. Yes, she is part of the problem by helping to cover up rape. But you can't just ignore someone's ideas and viewpoints because you know in part of their very, very complex personality there is some bad or evil. I want to repeat to you the "conservative" idea of diversity of thought rather than diversity of identity: we cannot afford to be closed-minded to someone else's viewpoints and thoughts for any reason.

[NOVA Green]

Of course....

Not only the Bernie Sanders, Joe Bidens, and Sherrod Brown's of the world, but this guy as well.



Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley. who hasn't received much national attention at all, but definitely not only speaks the language, but walks the talk, in a manner that no other current Democratic Senator from the West Coast has done, and representing the most working-class State in the West (Oregon), with the highest percentage of manufacturing, and the lowest Median Household Income, and done impressively well, even in Republican strongholds throughout the State...

[NOVA Green]

The WWC isn't a monolith.  A certain amount of the WWC is lost to the Democrats because they are primarily focused on social conservatism (guns, religious conservatism, immigration).  In this category, we can include most of the WWC in the South and Border States.

In Appalachia, there were two issues.  One was coal and energy, and the other was respect.  Trump promised them both.  The Democrats have hurt themselves with these folks by systematic insensitivity to their needs.  Trump gave them respect, and promised to protect their livelihoods. 

But the ones that were the real mind blowers were the WWC voters in WI, MI, PA, and MN.  These folks were Northerners and more likely to be unionized.  Here, what was needed was a candidate who viewed a feminist agenda to a working class agenda.  A significant number of these WWC voters have been divorced and have hefty child support payments to make.  Hillary's over-emphasis on respect for women, concern for "women and girls" endlessly, lectures on how "words matter" just let these people know that she didn't give a crap about them.  And while these guys have exes that may have been cheering for Hillary to keep 'em paying their child support, they also had a present significant other who was living lower on the hog because of the child support their husband/boyfriend had to pay. 

I'm not saying this is logical, and I'm certainly not defending child support deadbeats.  But people don't have to like sanctimony, and people can make decisions for themselves.  It IS possible to discuss the needs of women in ways that even chauvinistic males can pay attention to.  It's NOT possible for Hillary Clinton to pull that off, however.  She hates males, has a bias against them, and while I may give her some sympathy for what Bill has put her through, folks can figure out who is and isn't with them, and SHE wasn't with THEM.

I really doubt that child support payments were even a tertiary factor in Clinton doing poorly with the WWC. And the idea that a feminist agenda and working-class agenda are diametrically opposed is ridiculous.

Although I agree that Fuzzy Bear does bring up an important point that WWC voters are in no way shape or form a monolithic element, especially once one adjusts for region (Deep South, Appalachia, Upper Midwest, Central Atlantic, New England, and the Western US), and that there are very different types of cultural themes and economic backgrounds that play better in certain regions, it still seems that this is only scratching the surface of what is an extremely large and complex demographic in Modern American politics.

I'm not even going to go into details about my thoughts about the last two paragraphs of Fuzzy Bear's post, where it appeared that "The Bear" went off the rails quite a bit, on what initially started as a potentially promising post in the first part.... Not sure if Fuzzy might have some personal items going on there when it comes to family issues (IDK, but Fuzzy you appeared to be a bit "on tilt" my friend to use an old phrase from my professional poker playing days).

So--- Fuzzy called out variances in regions between WWC voting habits.

Now--- One of the elements that is much less frequently discussed, is the correlation between income and education when it comes to older voters (That tend to be much more Anglo than the US population).... Obviously if we are defining WWC voters solely by education, and without adjusting for age and income, let alone regions and subregions, we're going to see some pretty skewed results.

So--- unless I am living in an alternate universe, it's pretty clear that Bernie Sanders performed extremely well among WWC voters in the Democratic Primary, once we start looking at individual county and precinct level results....

Obviously, the key question is would that appeal have expanded to Indie and Republican "persuadable" voters in the GE?

Although the answer to that question is not yet clear, what is obvious is that in the vast majority of WWC counties and precincts, that swung most heavily towards Trump, were many of the same areas that had supported Bernie hard during the primaries....

We are not talking about some college kids in a few counties and towns, but rather the Democratic Base of Ancestral Democrats from small-towns and rural areas throughout our great nation.

[Lord Admirale]

^ Yes, Bill Clinton, who gutted Glass-Steagall, appointed Robert Rubin & Larry Summers to head the Treasury, was totally in bed with the bankers unlike his wife!

You're so clueless, dude. And no, running on an steadfast liberal economic platform like Bill did is not the key to winning back working class voters. I mean, Jesus, is this 1996?

Someone is still lamenting the loss of Corbyn, me thinks.

Rather than debate me, you launch an ad hominem attack calling me clueless, not to mention you provide absolutely no base to your petty comment. Come back to me once you've gained the maturity higher than that of a middle schooler.

a. I'm celebrating the UK election result, actually, as are all supporters of Corbyn. Not that it's pertinent to this discussion, but since you bring it up, I personally expected the landslide victory for the Tories, so I'm actually quite ecstatic that Jezza forced a hung parliament.
b. Um, how am I supposed to debate someone that thinks there's no base to the verifiably true claim that Clinton gutted Glass-Steagall & appointed Rubin & Summers to head the Treasury? Are documented administration appointments subject to interpretation in your delusional world?
c. Come back to me when you an have above-rudimentary understanding of politics & can formulate complete sentences. What, do tell, is "Bernie Sanders is" (as seen in your cancer-inducing signature) supposed to mean?

"Hey guys look, Irritable Moderate is cancer because of his signature! He must finish the sentence at the end! Haha yes! Stupid idiot! I got him!"

Obviously you don't have any maturity since 2/3 of your points are just flat out attacks.

Clinton appealed to the WWC because his life was similar to most of those who are working class Americans. He didn't live a lavish lifestyle and had a humble, hard-working beginning. He was a centrist, just like his VP. Fine, I'll admit, you got me on the Wall Street comment, but he didn't make very high priced speeches for Goldman Sachs prior to running for President. My point stands on celebrities.

Now, see how calm and collected I was in that argument?

[Beet]

Wait, so making a speech to Goldman Sachs is more pro-Wall Street than repealing Glass-Steagall? I think we've officially reached peak Hillary Deranagement Syncrone.

[Lord Admirale]

^ Yes, Bill Clinton, who gutted Glass-Steagall, appointed Robert Rubin & Larry Summers to head the Treasury, was totally in bed with the bankers unlike his wife!

You're so clueless, dude. And no, running on an steadfast liberal economic platform like Bill did is not the key to winning back working class voters. I mean, Jesus, is this 1996?

Someone is still lamenting the loss of Corbyn, me thinks.

Rather than debate me, you launch an ad hominem attack calling me clueless, not to mention you provide absolutely no base to your petty comment. Come back to me once you've gained the maturity higher than that of a middle schooler.

a. I'm celebrating the UK election result, actually, as are all supporters of Corbyn. Not that it's pertinent to this discussion, but since you bring it up, I personally expected the landslide victory for the Tories, so I'm actually quite ecstatic that Jezza forced a hung parliament.
b. Um, how am I supposed to debate someone that thinks there's no base to the verifiably true claim that Clinton gutted Glass-Steagall & appointed Rubin & Summers to head the Treasury? Are documented administration appointments subject to interpretation in your delusional world?
c. Come back to me when you an have above-rudimentary understanding of politics & can formulate complete sentences. What, do tell, is "Bernie Sanders is" (as seen in your cancer-inducing signature) supposed to mean?

"Hey guys look, Irritable Moderate is cancer because of his signature! He must finish the sentence at the end! Haha yes! Stupid idiot! I got him!"

Obviously you don't have any maturity since 2/3 of your points are just flat out attacks.

Clinton appealed to the WWC because his life was similar to most of those who are working class Americans. He didn't live a lavish lifestyle and had a humble, hard-working beginning. He was a centrist, just like his VP. Fine, I'll admit, you got me on the Wall Street comment, but he didn't make very high priced speeches for Goldman Sachs prior to running for President. My point stands on celebrities.

Now, see how calm and collected I was in that argument?

I feel like you're misinterpreting the tone in my comments here; you seem to be under the impression that your hilariously ignorant, Yahoo! comment section-tier comments have made me upset, when in fact I actually just find them funny & have only been responding to you in order to figure out whether you're just playing a character a la Bronz or whether you're actually a sincere poster, which, surprisingly, you appear to be.

As an aside, if you don't want people to critique what you post, perhaps you should consider not making absurd & verifiably claims about public officials' records? Just a thought.

You didn't address what I said.

Also you are the second person to claim I'm Bronz. Congrats.

Wait, so making a speech to Goldman Sachs is more pro-Wall Street than repealing Glass-Steagall? I think we've officially reached peak Hillary Deranagement Syncrone.

Are you gonna keep doing these comment blitzes against me? As in, you drop an arrogant "Hillary did nothing wrong" comment, then leave. Hillary lost, she was a good First Lady/Senator who turned bad and out of touch as Secretary of State, and she lost. Get over her. She's not coming back.

[Bidenworth2020]

obviously Bernie Sandas

[daveosupremo]

Biden 
Walker
LePage
Brown

[GlobeSoc]

Bullock/JBE could be a ticket that could both get through the democratic primary and get a decent performance among wwcs. My only issue is that JBE might be able to veto a gerrymander in Louisiana come redistricting.

[SoLongAtlas]

Biden
The Rock
NASCAR racer, say Jr or Jeff Gordon.
Another celeb that is well known.

[Lord Admirale]

Biden
The Rock
NASCAR racer, say Jr or Jeff Gordon.
Another celeb that is well known.

I doubt a celebrity who isn't Trump could secure the WWC, in fact Trump wasn't so much a celebrity. Hell, I think when Hillary was campaigning with Katy Perry and Jay-Z and Beyonce and God-knows-who-else, it had the opposite effect and drove people away from her. I think it can be safe that much of the WWC demographic hate the modern aristocracy, and saw Trump, despite being a billionaire, as the opposite.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

On topic (sorry), I don't think there's a way to appeal to the stereotypical WWC that switched from Democrat to republican without adopting some pretty unpleasant views. (Eg reversing on gay marriage,  mass deportations)

ETA: plus they'd have to go against welfare, killing it. Remember that the kinds of Democrats that win the WWC are people like Justice, Manchin, and Bill Clinton.

Trump didn't appeal to the WWC using that at all...

Mass deportation was literally one of the only consistent policies trump had.

Mass deportations? You mean enforcing the law? In fact, we're only deporting illegals who have committed crimes aside from illegal immigration; I wouldn't call that mass deportations.

There goes the far-left making a mountain out of a molehill.

that's BS. The current administration is deporting anyone it can. Even before, ICE would happily kidnap anyone they caught without citizenship papers, they just had to prioritize those who had committed a crime. This isn't nothing.

Source, please?

(TYT, HuffPost, Occupy Democrats, and others are not accurate in any sense)

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ice-deport-trump-20170517-story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/21/politics/dhs-immigration-guidance-detentions/index.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-deportation-force-20170412-story.html

The kind of source you would like
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/17/revealed-how-trump-will-speed-up-deportation-of-criminal-illegal-aliens/

Also, I like how you demand sources when you haven't given any.

That's because I didn't make any baseless claims.

Oh, also, nice job trying to imply I'm conservative. Look at my political matrix score, asshat.

Now then, moving on from your immature and petty attitude, let's talk about these sources, which I thank you for providing.

I read through them, and I still fail to see the problem. They broke the law; there are consequences for illegal actions. If it were up to me, everyone who broke our immigration laws would face the consequences. Just like how a murderer should face the consequences of their crime. It's pure justice.

I could make my PM score +10, +10, but I'd still be a liberal.

Your claim that only people with criminal records were being deported isn't self evident.

The legal code of the United States isn't a moral justification for anything.

A liberal who supports enforcing immigration laws - heck, even one that is downright intolerant of all immigrants, legal or not - is not a conservative.

Because you're clearly a glowing example of a conservative.

None of his political positions fit a self-described "social liberal, and economic moderate". Do you have some sort of bone to pick with me? Is my suggestion that a person who talks like a conservative republican about immigration isn't a social liberal offensive to your "republicans are and will always be about reaganism" crusade?

[Lord Admirale]

On topic (sorry), I don't think there's a way to appeal to the stereotypical WWC that switched from Democrat to republican without adopting some pretty unpleasant views. (Eg reversing on gay marriage,  mass deportations)

ETA: plus they'd have to go against welfare, killing it. Remember that the kinds of Democrats that win the WWC are people like Justice, Manchin, and Bill Clinton.

Trump didn't appeal to the WWC using that at all...

Mass deportation was literally one of the only consistent policies trump had.

Mass deportations? You mean enforcing the law? In fact, we're only deporting illegals who have committed crimes aside from illegal immigration; I wouldn't call that mass deportations.

There goes the far-left making a mountain out of a molehill.

that's BS. The current administration is deporting anyone it can. Even before, ICE would happily kidnap anyone they caught without citizenship papers, they just had to prioritize those who had committed a crime. This isn't nothing.

Source, please?

(TYT, HuffPost, Occupy Democrats, and others are not accurate in any sense)

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ice-deport-trump-20170517-story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/21/politics/dhs-immigration-guidance-detentions/index.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-deportation-force-20170412-story.html

The kind of source you would like
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/17/revealed-how-trump-will-speed-up-deportation-of-criminal-illegal-aliens/

Also, I like how you demand sources when you haven't given any.

That's because I didn't make any baseless claims.

Oh, also, nice job trying to imply I'm conservative. Look at my political matrix score, asshat.

Now then, moving on from your immature and petty attitude, let's talk about these sources, which I thank you for providing.

I read through them, and I still fail to see the problem. They broke the law; there are consequences for illegal actions. If it were up to me, everyone who broke our immigration laws would face the consequences. Just like how a murderer should face the consequences of their crime. It's pure justice.

I could make my PM score +10, +10, but I'd still be a liberal.

Your claim that only people with criminal records were being deported isn't self evident.

The legal code of the United States isn't a moral justification for anything.

A liberal who supports enforcing immigration laws - heck, even one that is downright intolerant of all immigrants, legal or not - is not a conservative.

Because you're clearly a glowing example of a conservative.

None of his political positions fit a self-described "social liberal, and economic moderate".Do you have some sort of bone to pick with me? Is my suggestion that a person who talks like a conservative republican about immigration isn't a social liberal offensive to your "republicans are and will always be about reaganism" crusade?

So me being right-wing on one issue means all my beliefs are conservative?

Strange.

[NOVA Green]

This thread is going so far off the rails, that it makes the legendary Casey Jones Trainwreck look like a minor industrial accident.



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

Now, there is a more recent interpretation sung by the legendary Grateful Dead that appears to imply that the Engineer of the Train might have been high on Cocaine and driving at excessive speeds...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnOhKy7kRBo

Still, regardless of whatever variation of the Casey Jones narrative one chooses to apply to this thread, it's pretty clear that the trainwreck has already happened with tons of bodies piled up on both sides of the tracks, with an initially solid question before the train got massively derailed.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

On topic (sorry), I don't think there's a way to appeal to the stereotypical WWC that switched from Democrat to republican without adopting some pretty unpleasant views. (Eg reversing on gay marriage,  mass deportations)

ETA: plus they'd have to go against welfare, killing it. Remember that the kinds of Democrats that win the WWC are people like Justice, Manchin, and Bill Clinton.

Trump didn't appeal to the WWC using that at all...

Mass deportation was literally one of the only consistent policies trump had.

Mass deportations? You mean enforcing the law? In fact, we're only deporting illegals who have committed crimes aside from illegal immigration; I wouldn't call that mass deportations.

There goes the far-left making a mountain out of a molehill.

that's BS. The current administration is deporting anyone it can. Even before, ICE would happily kidnap anyone they caught without citizenship papers, they just had to prioritize those who had committed a crime. This isn't nothing.

Source, please?

(TYT, HuffPost, Occupy Democrats, and others are not accurate in any sense)

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ice-deport-trump-20170517-story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/21/politics/dhs-immigration-guidance-detentions/index.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-deportation-force-20170412-story.html

The kind of source you would like
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/17/revealed-how-trump-will-speed-up-deportation-of-criminal-illegal-aliens/

Also, I like how you demand sources when you haven't given any.

That's because I didn't make any baseless claims.

Oh, also, nice job trying to imply I'm conservative. Look at my political matrix score, asshat.

Now then, moving on from your immature and petty attitude, let's talk about these sources, which I thank you for providing.

I read through them, and I still fail to see the problem. They broke the law; there are consequences for illegal actions. If it were up to me, everyone who broke our immigration laws would face the consequences. Just like how a murderer should face the consequences of their crime. It's pure justice.

I could make my PM score +10, +10, but I'd still be a liberal.

Your claim that only people with criminal records were being deported isn't self evident.

The legal code of the United States isn't a moral justification for anything.

A liberal who supports enforcing immigration laws - heck, even one that is downright intolerant of all immigrants, legal or not - is not a conservative.

Because you're clearly a glowing example of a conservative.

None of his political positions fit a self-described "social liberal, and economic moderate".Do you have some sort of bone to pick with me? Is my suggestion that a person who talks like a conservative republican about immigration isn't a social liberal offensive to your "republicans are and will always be about reaganism" crusade?

So me being right-wing on one issue means all my beliefs are conservative?

Strange.

You talk like a bronz esque social right winger in general, and I haven't seen you say anything liberal. Give a quote of you expressing liberal ideas in the past.

[Lord Admirale]

On topic (sorry), I don't think there's a way to appeal to the stereotypical WWC that switched from Democrat to republican without adopting some pretty unpleasant views. (Eg reversing on gay marriage,  mass deportations)

ETA: plus they'd have to go against welfare, killing it. Remember that the kinds of Democrats that win the WWC are people like Justice, Manchin, and Bill Clinton.

Trump didn't appeal to the WWC using that at all...

Mass deportation was literally one of the only consistent policies trump had.

Mass deportations? You mean enforcing the law? In fact, we're only deporting illegals who have committed crimes aside from illegal immigration; I wouldn't call that mass deportations.

There goes the far-left making a mountain out of a molehill.

that's BS. The current administration is deporting anyone it can. Even before, ICE would happily kidnap anyone they caught without citizenship papers, they just had to prioritize those who had committed a crime. This isn't nothing.

Source, please?

(TYT, HuffPost, Occupy Democrats, and others are not accurate in any sense)

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ice-deport-trump-20170517-story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/21/politics/dhs-immigration-guidance-detentions/index.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-deportation-force-20170412-story.html

The kind of source you would like
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/17/revealed-how-trump-will-speed-up-deportation-of-criminal-illegal-aliens/

Also, I like how you demand sources when you haven't given any.

That's because I didn't make any baseless claims.

Oh, also, nice job trying to imply I'm conservative. Look at my political matrix score, asshat.

Now then, moving on from your immature and petty attitude, let's talk about these sources, which I thank you for providing.

I read through them, and I still fail to see the problem. They broke the law; there are consequences for illegal actions. If it were up to me, everyone who broke our immigration laws would face the consequences. Just like how a murderer should face the consequences of their crime. It's pure justice.

I could make my PM score +10, +10, but I'd still be a liberal.

Your claim that only people with criminal records were being deported isn't self evident.

The legal code of the United States isn't a moral justification for anything.

A liberal who supports enforcing immigration laws - heck, even one that is downright intolerant of all immigrants, legal or not - is not a conservative.

Because you're clearly a glowing example of a conservative.

None of his political positions fit a self-described "social liberal, and economic moderate".Do you have some sort of bone to pick with me? Is my suggestion that a person who talks like a conservative republican about immigration isn't a social liberal offensive to your "republicans are and will always be about reaganism" crusade?

So me being right-wing on one issue means all my beliefs are conservative?

Strange.

You talk like a bronz esque social right winger in general, and I haven't seen you say anything liberal. Give a quote of you expressing liberal ideas in the past.

Give me quotes of me expressing conservative ideas outside of immigration. Voting for Donald Trump, a moderate Republican, does not make me a conservative at all. After Rudy Giuliani dropped out, I supported Hillary Clinton's candidacy in 2008, but reluctantly went for John McCain after she lost. Yes, I did support Mitt Romney in 2012, but his social conservatism became more and more revolting, so I switched my endorsement to Gary Johnson. This past election, I supported both Jim Webb and Rand Paul, however both of them lost and I did not like Cruz, Sanders, or Clinton at all.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Apologies for derailing the thread further, but I want to point out that both bronz and Irritable Moderate are from New Jersey.

As a New Jerseyan myself, I personally plenty of "moderates" - people who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative, i.e. your typical wine-track Democrats. Just today one of my usually-liberal friends liked a local Republican candidate's page!

I hypothesize that the prevalence of "moderates" (of both types) has to do with the social contradiction of New Jersey being Democratic while rich.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

On topic (sorry), I don't think there's a way to appeal to the stereotypical WWC that switched from Democrat to republican without adopting some pretty unpleasant views. (Eg reversing on gay marriage,  mass deportations)

ETA: plus they'd have to go against welfare, killing it. Remember that the kinds of Democrats that win the WWC are people like Justice, Manchin, and Bill Clinton.

Trump didn't appeal to the WWC using that at all...

Mass deportation was literally one of the only consistent policies trump had.

Mass deportations? You mean enforcing the law? In fact, we're only deporting illegals who have committed crimes aside from illegal immigration; I wouldn't call that mass deportations.

There goes the far-left making a mountain out of a molehill.

that's BS. The current administration is deporting anyone it can. Even before, ICE would happily kidnap anyone they caught without citizenship papers, they just had to prioritize those who had committed a crime. This isn't nothing.

Source, please?

(TYT, HuffPost, Occupy Democrats, and others are not accurate in any sense)

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ice-deport-trump-20170517-story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/21/politics/dhs-immigration-guidance-detentions/index.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-deportation-force-20170412-story.html

The kind of source you would like
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/17/revealed-how-trump-will-speed-up-deportation-of-criminal-illegal-aliens/

Also, I like how you demand sources when you haven't given any.

That's because I didn't make any baseless claims.

Oh, also, nice job trying to imply I'm conservative. Look at my political matrix score, asshat.

Now then, moving on from your immature and petty attitude, let's talk about these sources, which I thank you for providing.

I read through them, and I still fail to see the problem. They broke the law; there are consequences for illegal actions. If it were up to me, everyone who broke our immigration laws would face the consequences. Just like how a murderer should face the consequences of their crime. It's pure justice.

I could make my PM score +10, +10, but I'd still be a liberal.

Your claim that only people with criminal records were being deported isn't self evident.

The legal code of the United States isn't a moral justification for anything.

A liberal who supports enforcing immigration laws - heck, even one that is downright intolerant of all immigrants, legal or not - is not a conservative.

Because you're clearly a glowing example of a conservative.

None of his political positions fit a self-described "social liberal, and economic moderate".Do you have some sort of bone to pick with me? Is my suggestion that a person who talks like a conservative republican about immigration isn't a social liberal offensive to your "republicans are and will always be about reaganism" crusade?

So me being right-wing on one issue means all my beliefs are conservative?

Strange.

You talk like a bronz esque social right winger in general, and I haven't seen you say anything liberal. Give a quote of you expressing liberal ideas in the past.

Give me quotes of me expressing conservative ideas outside of immigration. Voting for Donald Trump, a moderate Republican, does not make me a conservative at all. After Rudy Giuliani dropped out, I supported Hillary Clinton's candidacy in 2008, but reluctantly went for John McCain after she lost. Yes, I did support Mitt Romney in 2012, but his social conservatism became more and more revolting, so I switched my endorsement to Gary Johnson. This past election, I supported both Jim Webb and Rand Paul, however both of them lost and I did not like Cruz, Sanders, or Clinton at all.

If trump's a moderate I'm a papaya. I don't think I can give you quotes of you talking about other issues at all.