For someone who seems like they are trying to approach this conversation in an even handed way this statement is pretty odd. Of the items you list as being tied to the “anti-trump” bias, not a single one of them is a policy that I or anyone I’ve met who is anti-trump supports. If you don’t actually want to know what the other side thinks, that’s cool (and pretty common these days). But if you do, then you should try asking us. I know you didn’t but I’m going to clarify my perspective anyway and then respond to the other side of the list (I.e. The views you have stated), because I believe that one of the most important things we can do as a country is to actually talk to each other.
- I have literally never heard anyone on the left argue for “massive entitlements”. I’m not actually positive I know what you mean. I think you’re referring to a welfare system and social safety net, so I’m gonna describe my views on that. Please correct me if you meant a separate issue. My perspective and the perspective I see the most from the left is that we support the existence of social systems that benefit people in need. Yes there will always be some inequality in the country. That’s a reality we have accepted. What we haven’t accepted is the idea that A. Being poor should be a death sentence (even if you can’t afford it the government should provide you with medical care to save your life) and B. Sometimes peoples individual resources are limited and they should be helped to get back on on their feet. For example, I work with homeless youth professionally. Most of my clients are homeless for reasons beyond their control (their parents tried to kill them/threatened to kill the them if they didn’t leave/forcibly pushed them from the home/died). There being a law that allows someone to get government sponsored healthcare when their income is below a certain point (Medicare) is a pretty massive entitlement, but it keeps kids alive and that to me, is worth paying extra taxes.
- I have literally never met anyone on the left who supports completely uncontrolled immigration. A much more common position is supporting a clearly understood path to citizenship and that people who are on that path, have certain rights that should be respected (like the right to receive medical treatment or the right to seek protection from an abusive partner). An example of where Trump pisses off this perspective is when his administration released a publicly searchable list of immigrants private information, including the location of woman actively trying to hide from someone who abused them. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/05/immigrant-domestic-violence-victims-appear-dhs-database/
- I don’t think anyone on either side of the aisle is biased towards a massive national debt. That being said open immigration + welfare = deficit is not really an accurate statement. For one thing, high immigration can decrease a deficit depending on the polices around it, as immigrants pay taxes to the government (like sales tax for example) but aren’t able to access a lot of governmental programs (like food stamps). Secondly while some welfare programs do increase the deficit, most of them do not actually represent a very large portion of the governments budget. For example in 2012 2% of the spending was for this program. Thirdly (skipping ahead) increased defense and military funding actually does a lot more damage to the budget than the average welfare program. In 2012, the spending for defense was nearly 10 times that of food stamps. Here’s some helpful info about food stamps:http://www.justharvest.org/advocacy/the-truth-about-snap-food-stamps/. And here’s a really good article on the complexities of the budget, that you might find helpful https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-budget-deficit-3305783
- Bonus: Socialism. You didn’t mention it specifically but I see folks being ticked off because of my sides socialist views, especially around healthcare. So I thought I would give a perspective on that too. When people on my side say “socialist policy” what we mean is a program entirely paid for by a government for the sake of its citizens. These types of programs are often outside the system of “supply and demand”. An existing example is the police, who are paid entirely through the government and function to serve and protect its populace. This makes sense as something that shouldn’t be controlled privately and subject to supply and demand. People have no control over when someone will act criminally against them, and shouldn’t be expected to pay out of pocket for the police’s protection. What people are on side are NOT saying is that everything should be socialist. Movies for example for the sake of entertainment make excellent sense inside a supply and demand environment. Bad movies shouldn’t make money. My perspective on healthcare is that it is more similar to the need for then police than to the desire to see a movie, and thus policy around it should reflect that.
So really what you meant to say was “If your bias is against exposing immigrant victims of domestic violence to their abusers, against denying medical care to the poor and literal children and have complex views around the deficit then one most likely hates Trump.
- Strong manufacturing based economy? You do realize that most of those jobs were lost due to new technology making it cheaper to build a machine to do the job a person was once paid to do. I don’t actually think Trump can help you with that.
- Pretty sure both sides of the aisle want a secure border and strong defense. Although my side does acknowledge the way both those things also affect the deficit.
- There’s actually a fair number of Trump supporters giving other really gross reasons for supporting him. No, I’m not saying all Trump supporters are like that. But they do exist, and I do kind of wonder. What are the not-racist Trump supporters doing about those folks? Do you ask them to be accountable for how their support portrays the rest of you and Trump himself? Cause that’s actually probably a good idea.