3 ms·

You are talking about the man himself and not the policies that he was promoting. While both are reasonable things to discuss, you did not actually negate the

You are talking about the man himself and not the policies that he was promoting. While both are reasonable things to discuss, you did not actually negate the comment you were responding to.

light_hue_1 5y ago
> the policies that he was promoting Name a policy that helped his supporters. His policies either helped elites or hurt the other side, but did not help his base. Virtually the only thing he ever did for his own base was to give out COVID relief support. Caging children at the border? All about hurting the other side that cares about immigrants. Lowering corporate taxes? Help for elites, particularly for those with huge fortunes overseas. Workers saw virtually nothing from the tax cuts. Stopping California from imposing stricter emissions standards? Help for elites. Abortion? His side isn't having them anyway, it's all about hurting others. Stopping student loan forgiveness? Either helping elites or hurting the other side. Maybe both. Revoking the EPA's jurisdiction over waterways so that there is more pollution? Helping elites and hurting his side. Republican states are far more polluted than Democrat ones. The trade war that particularly hurt farmers? We could keep going like this. Virtually all of Trump's policies were designed to help elites, hurt the left, but not to help right. The clearest way to put it, is the way his own supporters put it "He is hurting the wrong people." That's what Trump sells. It's a world divorced from reality where anyone who doesn't agree is an enemy. Trump is not anti-elite. His supporters are not anti-elite. They love elites.
- StandardFuture 5y ago
  You have completely missed the point despite your temper-tantrum rage ranting. Maybe grow up a little? But first, your entire argument against the grandparent comment is "Trump is rich and had some policies that benefitted some rich people" as equaling that his base is in love with the very concept of political and business elitism? Do you not see how completely nonsensically disingenuous and logically fallacious of an argument that is? Are you actually interested in having an intellectual discussion on the topic or do you want to rant like you are on Twitter, Reddit, or some cable media show? Feel free to head over to one of those if that is your intentions. The primary reason why Trump was elected was because he was the only candidate brave enough to attack both the Bush and Clinton dynastic era policies (on live Television, btw). IIRC, he did replace NAFTA. A lot of Americans actually are interested in the idea of a strong focus on American job availability. Regardless of a subjective judgement on whether Trump mad e progress on this or not, those were the policies he publicly promoted. He also has done other public things like Twitter rants against companies that are moving factories to Mexico, etc. So, his base is entirely aware of all of these things and that is exactly what GP commenter was referring too. And that is exactly what you failed to negate with all of your flamebaiting ranting.

You are talking about the man himself and not the policies that he was promoting. While both are reasonable things to discuss, you did not actually negate the comment you were responding to.

light_hue_1 5y ago

> the policies that he was promoting Name a policy that helped his supporters. His policies either helped elites or hurt the other side, but did not help his base. Virtually the only thing he ever did for his own base was to give out COVID relief support. Caging children at the border? All about hurting the other side that cares about immigrants. Lowering corporate taxes? Help for elites, particularly for those with huge fortunes overseas. Workers saw virtually nothing from the tax cuts. Stopping California from imposing stricter emissions standards? Help for elites. Abortion? His side isn't having them anyway, it's all about hurting others. Stopping student loan forgiveness? Either helping elites or hurting the other side. Maybe both. Revoking the EPA's jurisdiction over waterways so that there is more pollution? Helping elites and hurting his side. Republican states are far more polluted than Democrat ones. The trade war that particularly hurt farmers? We could keep going like this. Virtually all of Trump's policies were designed to help elites, hurt the left, but not to help right. The clearest way to put it, is the way his own supporters put it "He is hurting the wrong people." That's what Trump sells. It's a world divorced from reality where anyone who doesn't agree is an enemy. Trump is not anti-elite. His supporters are not anti-elite. They love elites.

StandardFuture 5y ago
You have completely missed the point despite your temper-tantrum rage ranting. Maybe grow up a little? But first, your entire argument against the grandparent comment is "Trump is rich and had some policies that benefitted some rich people" as equaling that his base is in love with the very concept of political and business elitism? Do you not see how completely nonsensically disingenuous and logically fallacious of an argument that is? Are you actually interested in having an intellectual discussion on the topic or do you want to rant like you are on Twitter, Reddit, or some cable media show? Feel free to head over to one of those if that is your intentions. The primary reason why Trump was elected was because he was the only candidate brave enough to attack both the Bush and Clinton dynastic era policies (on live Television, btw). IIRC, he did replace NAFTA. A lot of Americans actually are interested in the idea of a strong focus on American job availability. Regardless of a subjective judgement on whether Trump mad e progress on this or not, those were the policies he publicly promoted. He also has done other public things like Twitter rants against companies that are moving factories to Mexico, etc. So, his base is entirely aware of all of these things and that is exactly what GP commenter was referring too. And that is exactly what you failed to negate with all of your flamebaiting ranting.