Can we get a GOP Friendly Writeup of Grievences?

Welcome to the 1970’s Republican party. They learned a lot in the period between Goldwater and Reagan.


Yay southern strategy and courting evangelicals. /s

The weird thing about my family, and I want to say this about a lot of other Trumosters, is they sound more racist the further away a group is. Mexicans? Worthless job stealing illegals. Family’s friends with a Mexican family (Mexican/white to boot so interracial kids.) Again talk of how mooching black people are, we babysat a black kid for years off of one of my stepdadcs coworkers who they still hold in high regard as a genuinely good person. Sadly the one exposure they had to gsy/lesbian personally was a drug addict who my little brother thought he got pregnant having a lesbian mom who was… Antagonistic.

With Disability my family might have more perspective than most given there’s not just me, but my twin (full time care,) my sister (adopted, full time care plus seizure prone,) and mom’s older sister (full time care.) They see the need for help for the disables. Yet there is disagreement on if the elderly that has families deserve help or if their families should take the burden.

They see the past as some Walton’s esque slice of perfection we must retreat into. Never mind both my parents are old enough to hopefully realize that sort of ‘everyone helping eachother and we never had a lot but by gosh we were happy with what we had’ mentality is a myth.


Here’s my problem with that, though: I was one of those people (there are millions of us) who was always nice, always conciliatory, always took the high road, kept my mouth shut, lied for them if that’s what it took to make sure THEY continued to feel good about themselves, didn’t show my horror at their egregious hatred of human and civil rights for anyone who wasn’t exactly like them, didn’t point out how hypocritical their opinions were with regard to the timbers in their own eyes…and over time they have continued to treat me (and those others) as lesser human beings and gleefully voted for further and further bigotry, xenophobia, and fascism.

You’re telling me it’s my job to continue rolling over to let them kick me, because somehow I’m at fault for expressing (in private) any problem I have with their treatment of me (and millions of other people).

It’s not my job. It never was my job, and yet I’ve been doing it for free for years. I don’t owe them any more of my consideration. And you don’t have any standing for telling me that I do.


I would find it odd if they weren’t. It does seem like a lot of people voted for him because they didn’t like Hilary or because of the abortion issue. I posted this video without comment yesterday, but I guess I should have been clearer:

We often see the other side as this uniform and incorrigible group, when they really aren’t. There are people who are against abortion, but want women to be safe. Some people don’t like big government, but they do want to make things better for disadvantaged people. Liberals and Muslims may unite over civil liberties, while Muslims and Evangelicals may unite over religious liberties. The point is that people are complex and acting like they are enthusiastic proponents of everything that their party stands for blinds us to possible alliances.

I think one of the big things that can be done is to find these links or possible areas of agreement or alliance. Sister Joan Chittister’s words come to mind:

I think in many cases your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born, but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. That’s not pro-life, that’s pro-birth.

Sister Chichester is against abortion as a choice or form of birth control, but thinks it should be available if the woman and her doctor see it as the only option. She points out that killing is not considered an absolute wrong in conflict situations or other cases. Sometimes it’s like the trolley problem and you have to weigh the benefits of direct action against inaction leading to greater harm. There are probably quite a few people who could support her position and statistics show that most people do not think in absolute pro-choice or pro-life terms. It looks like many religious conservatives put a lot of emphasis on abortion as a motivator, so this is a key point. Christianity has been against abortion and infanticide since the early church, and Christians have been outspoken in their support of rights for disadvantaged people on many occasions. Progressives may not align with them on everything or even most things, but they are no more natural enemies than Muslims and progressives are. In both cases it’s possible to acknowledge that there are a number of significant disagreements, but we can disagree from a position that recognises the things that unite us.

Part of the point is deciding who you talk with and how you frame your arguments. As @LDoBe pointed out, the package of policies that progressives want actually leads to fewer, earlier and safer abortions. However, it is often framed as if it would be possible to eliminate it without causing significant harm. There’s the idea that you cannot allow the government to be involved in killing, but this is already happening:

Some may be completely opposed to drone strikes, others might see it as more complex, especially if they think it leads to less harm in the long term. Sister Chichester’s quote also points out that we are morally responsible for our inaction as well as for our actions. Abortion is presented as an absolute wrong, but even if you’re strongly against it it isn’t as simple as that.

I also commented yesterday that the current polarisation can be a sort of triangulation strategy to stop progress from happening and divide people who actually have many shared interests. In many ways I think refusing to view the world in those terms is the only way forward; but another one is accepting the messiness of people’s views. This will be an issue that people will disagree on for a long time, but encouraging both conservatives and progressives to stop seeing this issue as non-negotiable (in the sense that conservatives can be against abortion and still support a pro-choice candidate based on overall agreement, and progressives can see this as fundamental to women’s rights, but still accept support from people who disagree on this issue).


I’m not sure if it’s possible to find arguments against Trump’s actions that his supporters will give serious consideration to. If Trump’s own past statements on the evils of Executive Orders or how the Electoral College is a disaster for Democracy are dismissively brushed away then why would they listen to anything I have to say on the subject?


I’m tall,so I have to prop my monitors up on books at work. Under my monitors are all my textbooks from my favorite class in college “Welfare States in Comparison.” That class blew my mind wide open as to what a comprehensive, intentional and effective welfare state is, as opposed to a collection of hodgepodge “safety nets.” Systems like single-payer, for a relevant example, are an improvement in the system of healthcare at it’s root, not just a subsidy for those who can’t.

Social Programs vs. Charity
In that class we talked a lot of charity vs. welfare, and by extension private charitable / non-profit vs. Government welfare and social programs. Conservatives’ feeling that government assistance should step in only if a family can’t provide is related to this idea. It’s built on a framing of sickness, disability and need, generally, as a job for charity, whether it be from the family, the church, or other charity, because those organizations “care” about the person. To them, the uncaring state is the opposite, and seeks to remove the family from the equation and replace it. I don’t think we’re going to be able to obliterate this divide, but I think that we can chip away at the framing that a strong, well-planned welfare state undermines families’ responsibility to take care of their own. An effective social program should actually make it easier for families to take care of their own by making the systems they have to interact with and access more efficient and more robust.

You Can’t Pick your family…
I personally think the idea that people should get assistance only if their families can’t provide ignores how truly horrible some people’s families are, and what an unfair, luck-of-the-draw situation a sick person in the care of an abusive family faces. If your family is resistant to the idea that country of birth is luck of the draw and shouldn’t determine one’s financial future, this will be another tough one, but perhaps an angle to consider.

I’ve Got My Own Problems
The third aspect of the charity/family vs welfare state is the idea that families already struggling shouldn’t have to support some lazy stranger, who could support themselves if they tried. The only answer to this, I think, is the “one innocent man/ten guilty men” argument. If a true improvement in the system of social services across the board would end up supporting some “undeserving” people, while helping all the “deserving people,” is it worth sticking with a shittier system for everyone, just to make sure some “undeserving” people don’t accidentally get their hands on it? How much better would the system have to be to make this chance worth it? What form would it have to take to make this chance worth it? The “you agree we should pay taxes for roads, though!” is a pretty tired cliche, but applied to this case, I see the issue of social programs as analogous to “would you pay for shittier roads, just so poor people wouldn’t have a smooth ride?”

Social Service Compromise
There was an article a while back on the Guardian about a woman being considered for a Trump post who was the daughter of a very left-wing immigrant family. She, as a healthcare consultant to republican state legislators, was the author of incredibly punitive welfare restrictions in some very red states, including very harsh and invasive needs testing for cash assistance and onerous volunteering requirements for unemployment. She’s generally presented as an enemy to social welfare causes, I felt the same way during the first part of the article. Toward the end they noted, however, that she had gotten states to adopt social programs that they wouldn’t have otherwise, by adding these provisions. I walked away from the article thinking she may be more clever than the rest of us. She may have just found a way to give the reddest states their first taste of social welfare, and at least give them a chance to see that things could work in their state.


. . . . . .

Holy shit. Uh. Yea.

Look I am disabled. However I have enough I can do that I wouldn’t mind taking volunteer hours SO LONG AS IT IS SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE I CAN DO. Not ‘oh Billy Blindboy needs to do something we’ll have him do something useless a few hours a week.’ Fuck that. The reason I have been job centric is because I want people to not see me as a parasite leeching off of my family (they insist I help out by doing home things. Technically true but given my opinion holds no weight or ideas given merit…) Plus I see that as a chance to normalize the disabled socially. Part of why my social skills have atrophied to nothing is the fact I am in this cocoon and never leave it. It also is why I am very… Aggressively not happy with family. They are all I see most times. It’s like cabin fever.

So as long as the ‘required’ work is something matched to a person’s ability. Do with a minimum of oversight? I’m all for having volunteer hours… Assuming a way is given to get to and from said thing.

Can you keep writing? What you were talking felt awesome to read.


Did you have any luck?

No because ‘trump is acting like a stern parent putting unruly kids in line and the kids are throwing a hissy fit.’

That narrative is hard to break when you are seen as one of those ‘kids.’


@singletona082 What are the specific issues you would like to start addressing. I can write a draft.


Are you unable to leave the house physically, or mentally?

Start slowly. Go outside into the yard for 5 minutes today. Make it 10 minutes tomorrow. By the end of a week, see if you can make it to the end of the block. You’re not going to be doing major political volunteer work overnight; you have to start flexing your muscles in preparation.

You need to break this sense that you can’t do anything. Most people with disabilities are able to do a lot of things, usually after figuring out how to do them differently.

Remember, a sizeable portion of people on this forum – and on this thread, even – also have disabilities. We’re not lecturing you, we’re offering advice from a position of knowledge.


The big one my parents and their circles seem to have are protest related. There are others but as a bit of a rundown in questions they might ask.

Why are people going out to protest in the streets?

Why do these protesters dress so poorly?

If it was so bad for republicans to block what they saw as poor for america choices Obama wanted. Make why is it suddenly OK to turn around and do the same to trump?

What’s the big deal about trump’s comment about america not having clean hands?

What is the problem with trump wishing to tighten immigration control and have a temporary restriction from countries that are currently antagonistic to the united states?

Why do you defend the affordable care act when it is neither affordable nor does it really provide care needed?

Why does it matter if [official name] does not know the department they are head of, shouldn’t it be a case of someone that understands how to delicate and then surround themselves with experts instead of someone attempting to micromanage?

Younger people are acting resentful of trump giving a firm and authoritative attempt at giving america direction. Why?

I don’t know if these are their questions but it seems to be what I keep hearing them discuss amongst themselves or lob at my head.


Oh I can walk (right now though is a bad day with my sister so I have to help mind her while the folks take care of paperwork issues.) Walking I can do. I’m a mile from downtown. It is more I want the government to stop treating me like I have to earn the privilege of getting told I am unfit to work and would be a burden on employers.

The biggest reason I haven’t been out more is the house is still under renovations so it’s a case of constant whack a moke with different projects.


Technically no we are not throwing a hissy fit we are in fact demonstrating what democracy looks like. Voting is one expression of civic action, a demonstration is another; there are others.


This is me facedesking at Facebook.

OK I get being hurt and angry at protests being mocked and pointing out facts ignored, but to go ‘the only good trump supporter is a dead one’? To call for an armed revolution?

Thank you for helping the other side continue to not take dissenting opinion seriously. Thank you so very fucking much. That kind of shit is not productive. It is not helpful.

I just wish I knew what was since ‘trump’s bringing jobs back to america.’ And ‘give him time.’

1 Like

Unemployment is very near the natural low point (according to those egghead economists, what could they possibly know), who, exactly would fill all these promised “jobs” the SFV insists he’ll “bring back” to the US? But before you answer, allow me to guess…children, the disabled and the elderly?

Put blunt? Fuck if I know man. I just know that by the supporters I personally know opponents haven’t a leg to stand on and trump can do no wrong. This makes discussion difficult.


I will tell you that there is a certain amount of sizing up their arguments that does need to be done, and here’s why.

A lot of them are based on double standards.

I start from the proposition that anyone who disrespects your dignity when you do not respect their authority, is not someone you are debating. That is someone you are defending yourself against.

One of the most common disrespects against dignity is the double standard.

A simple one: The left makes broad brush assumptions about the right, itself a broad brush assumption. Or, the left is violent, when no political party has a monopoly on violence. Another is that they argue by assertion, while you bear a burden of proof.

This is not easy to get someone else to recognize fallacies in their own worldview and expectations.

Ask people to meet, for you, the standard of evidence they expect from you. And if they’re trying to convince you, insist they go first.

You have a hard row to hoe. I grew up in a super conservative family, and at some point I actually had to say that if the degrading politicial emails continued I would have to find a way to move on without them in my life, at all. That would not have been easy for me at the time, but my dad at least came to realize that the degradations over politics didn’t have no effect on my self esteem and his heart won out over his ego and he stopped.

I hope you find a way through to peace. You don’t have to convince anyone to agree with you. You may have to convince them they’re causing you a lot of trouble with their lack of restraint.


For you that worked. For me my stepdad was raised to the standards of showing emotion is weakness. That I would be so ‘hurt’ that I have to take such measures would show weakness and show that I am wrong by having to appeal to emotion.

And you’re wrong. I have to do something because for the time being I live with these people and cannot leave short of section eight housing.

Was that someone you know stating that thought directly, or was it someone claiming “look what these libruls are saying”?

There are extremists on the end of any spectrum, true, but that sounds more like all the other made up fears of Trumpists rather than an actual statement by a frustrated liberal.