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

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

Mark Zuckerberg

LOL

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

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...

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

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.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

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)

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

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.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

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.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

^ 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.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

^ 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?

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

^ 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.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

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.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

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.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

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.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

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.

I mean our state voted Republican non-stop from 1968 to 1992, so that comes to say something.

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.

So why did you make a false claim saying that "[I talk] like a conservative republican"?

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

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.

I mean our state voted Republican non-stop from 1968 to 1992, so that comes to say something.

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.

So why did you make a false claim saying that "[I talk] like a conservative republican"?

Because thats how you talk about immigration, like a bronz esque right winger. Its about more then a checklist of positions. Its about mentality. You clearly think about the issues in a Bill Clinton conservative kind of way.

So one issue makes me a conservative thinker?

S t r a n g e.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

So one issue makes me a conservative thinker?

S t r a n g e.

Whoosh.

You do not hold a liberal view of the world. The way you explain and justify your position on immigration is simply evidence of that. One can get a pretty decent understanding of people by seeing them talk about something. Shockingly, peoples philosophies show through in more  ways then just which bubble they put on a set of issues. There are more types of "conservative" then just Romney/Pence. Right wing beliefs are ultimately about regression, tribalism, "Good" g,roups and "Bad" groups, an ingrained belief in a specific order of the world being the way things should be, respect for things one considers traditional institutions and traditional hierarchies, etc.

Again, one issue doesn't necessarily determine my beliefs. I'm not sure how I am a "tribalistic" person, but let me break apart your rant.

I can bet you quite dislike Black Lives Matter,

I was a supporter when it first came to fruition as I was repulsed by Michael Brown's murder and the officer's subsequent acquittal, however it eventually just became more and more vitriolic. It hit my breaking point in late 2015 when a lot of its supporters were complaining that more people were focusing on the Paris shooting than what happened Missouri. That's when I decided that the movement was now a parade of attention whores.

I can bet you aren't a modern feminist

I support equal pay, harsher sentencing for rapists, among other things. However, just like BLM, it became a parade of attention whores with stuff like "manspreading" and "stare rape" becoming oppression. That and they made white males (like myself) the whipping post for all their problems, which made me feel alienated from the movement.

I can bet you don't care much about helping people in the LGBTQ+ community(unless you have gay or trans family members, in which case you would)

Actually I do care very much about the LGBTQ+ community. I think one of the things that makes me somewhat wary of Trump is that he chose Mike Pence, a very homophobic politician, to become his #2. There needs to be more protection for the LGBTQ+ community, and I think that's where the GOP and Trump's administration has fallen short.

I can bet you liked Brexit

Correct.

I wouldn't be surprised if you would have voted for Marine Le Pen in the french election

I mean I don't like Macron very much due to his career as a banker, so really in France it would be picking my poison.

I can bet you have some Islamophobic views(eg supporting a muslim ban)

Not really, even though one of my earliest memories was 9/11. I dated a Muslim girl for quite some time, actually.

I can bet that you aren't super into criminal justice reform

Wrong.

I can bet that you have some pretty unfortunate views on the subject of consent("Come on, they're just horsing around. Boys will be boys"), etc.

That was one low, baseless claim. Someone very close to me was subject to sexual assault, and I've taken time to care for her and to make sure she's well. You oughta be ashamed of yourself for making such a low comment.

Or maybe I'm misreading and you're some R-MI avatar putting on a mask or something.

Wrong.

Let me know how I did.

F-, see me after class

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

You literally dislike a politician because he worked as a banker?...  Jesus Christ, you at least checked one completely thoughtless, liberal cliche box on your list.

You could be a bit less rude, you know.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

So one issue makes me a conservative thinker?

S t r a n g e.

Whoosh.

You do not hold a liberal view of the world. The way you explain and justify your position on immigration is simply evidence of that. One can get a pretty decent understanding of people by seeing them talk about something. Shockingly, peoples philosophies show through in more  ways then just which bubble they put on a set of issues. There are more types of "conservative" then just Romney/Pence. Right wing beliefs are ultimately about regression, tribalism, "Good" g,roups and "Bad" groups, an ingrained belief in a specific order of the world being the way things should be, respect for things one considers traditional institutions and traditional hierarchies, etc.

Again, one issue doesn't necessarily determine my beliefs. I'm not sure how I am a "tribalistic" person, but let me break apart your rant.

I can bet you quite dislike Black Lives Matter,

I was a supporter when it first came to fruition as I was repulsed by Michael Brown's murder and the officer's subsequent acquittal, however it eventually just became more and more vitriolic. It hit my breaking point in late 2015 when a lot of its supporters were complaining that more people were focusing on the Paris shooting than what happened Missouri. That's when I decided that the movement was now a parade of attention whores.

I can bet you aren't a modern feminist

I support equal pay, harsher sentencing for rapists, among other things. However, just like BLM, it became a parade of attention whores with stuff like "manspreading" and "stare rape" becoming oppression. That and they made white males (like myself) the whipping post for all their problems, which made me feel alienated from the movement.

I can bet you don't care much about helping people in the LGBTQ+ community(unless you have gay or trans family members, in which case you would)

Actually I do care very much about the LGBTQ+ community. I think one of the things that makes me somewhat wary of Trump is that he chose Mike Pence, a very homophobic politician, to become his #2. There needs to be more protection for the LGBTQ+ community, and I think that's where the GOP and Trump's administration has fallen short.

I can bet you liked Brexit

Correct.

I wouldn't be surprised if you would have voted for Marine Le Pen in the french election

I mean I don't like Macron very much due to his career as a banker, so really in France it would be picking my poison.

I can bet you have some Islamophobic views(eg supporting a muslim ban)

Not really, even though one of my earliest memories was 9/11. I dated a Muslim girl for quite some time, actually.

I can bet that you aren't super into criminal justice reform

Wrong.

I can bet that you have some pretty unfortunate views on the subject of consent("Come on, they're just horsing around. Boys will be boys"), etc.

That was one low, baseless claim. Someone very close to me was subject to sexual assault, and I've taken time to care for her and to make sure she's well. You oughta be ashamed of yourself for making such a low comment.

Or maybe I'm misreading and you're some R-MI avatar putting on a mask or something.

Wrong.

Let me know how I did.

F-, see me after class

So you believe all these culturally liberal (kind of) things and yet you support trump? What about all the sexual harrassment he's done? What about the blatant race-baiting? What about the horribe islamophobia? You really don't seem like someone telling the truth about what you believe.

You literally dislike a politician because he worked as a banker?...  Jesus Christ, you at least checked one completely thoughtless, liberal cliche box on your list.

You keep implying that a liar, and it's not working very well.

NO I'm really a freedom luvin' gun toatin' Confederate flag wavin' Mexican Muslim Queer hatin' hardcore conservative! You got me libtard!

*heavy sarcasm*

Seriously, I'm not lying. I am center-left; moderate liberal. I'm not a member of either party, and I've endorsed Democrats and Republicans throughout my life.

I'd love the DNC to put up a rational Democrat come 2020, like Mark Warner or Andrew Cuomo, but they won't. They'll probably put Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or some other nut-job that will either force me to vote for Trump again or 3rd party.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

You keep implying that a liar, and it's not working very well.

NO I'm really a freedom luvin' gun toatin' Confederate flag wavin' Mexican Muslim Queer hatin' hardcore conservative! You got me libtard!

*heavy sarcasm*

Seriously, I'm not lying. I am center-left; moderate liberal. I'm not a member of either party, and I've endorsed Democrats and Republicans throughout my life.

I'd love the DNC to put up a rational Democrat come 2020, like Mark Warner or Andrew Cuomo, but they won't. They'll probably put Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or some other nut-job that will either force me to vote for Trump again or 3rd party.

You dodged the question. What reasons do you, a supposed center leftist, have to like trump? Something about the way you talk sets off flags of fake. Almost like a sock trying to mask its ideology...

You don't fit in any better with your party than I do, probably much worse.  I typed liberal because I meant liberal.

Are you seriously suggesting I fit better in the Republican party then the Democratic party?

I mean I'm from New Jersey; we talk very different from you Arizonans.

I supported Trump for his policies on infrastructure and that he wasn't Hillary Clinton. Along with that, I was repulsed by how Hillary surrounded herself with Hollywood celebrities, who act like they know the common man. Hillary was also very passively racist, mostly to African-Americans (ala "hot sauce!" and having a rap concert/rally with Jay Z in Cleveland)

But boy, you are one paranoid person.