Millennials are generally between 25-40 years old. What I meant was that as people get older, they usually abandon extremist views in order to focus on more practical concerns. As you have pointed out, some Millennials already entered the workforce quite some time ago. In my experience those people usually abandoned extremist social views to focus on their career. Sorry for the confusion.
Libertarianism is a philosophy based around freedom of autonomy, choice, and personal association. Many self described leaders of the libertarian movement(like the Koch brothers) are in favor of open borders.
Open borders, a policy I'm assuming you are against, is not forced integration. The illegal immigrants who come here do so voluntarily. Are you against libertarianism or for it?
Its mostly Hollywood and the MSM, and big companies that have conformed to that type of language. The main priority for the folks in charge of these large corporate entities is appealing to the largest consumer base possible in order to make as much money as possible, and by extension, they don't want to "offend anyone" who might buy their products.
In reality, I think the vast majority of Americans couldn't give a shit one way or anther(ex. only about 35% of woman consider themselves "feminists") I have lots of extremely liberal friends who laugh at jokes that would get them fired if revealed publicly, and honestly as long as your not either a complete asshole/a celebrity the "Me Too' stuff shouldn't be something to worry about. Most of the loud, obnoxious people who are super anal about controlling free speech are young, and love it because for them its a power trip in a world where they are basically powerless.
The free love movement of the 1960's collapsed when youths realized all drugs and no work was not a sustainable way of life, and similarly millennials will quickly abandon their extremist beliefs once they enter the workforce and realize that not all men are rapists and not all ethnic minorities are saints. Violent groups like Antifa are a problem, but unless you are a well known right wing public figure you shouldn't ever have to worry about them. For now companies and politicians are making big bucks riding the wave of woke(and the wave of "anti woke") but the great thing about a free market economy is you can always buy from someone else and vote for somebody else.
Given that its a cultural phenomenon that is out of the control of any individual, I think its best to dismiss it for what it is - a phase.
I agree with you about the duality of being pro worker and pro business simultaneously. Capitalism always works the best when as few obstacles as possible are in the way to prevent it from taking off.
My problem is primarily with industry subsidization and government sponsored bailouts. Both Democrats and Republicans jump to the rescue of any mismanaged, antiquated, farm, factory, or coal plant whenever votes are on the line. Trump has done nothing to stop this, and has recently dumped significant amounts of tax payer money into subsiding the farm industry and coal industry. Coal can't compete with natural gas and foreign oil. Its why so many coal mines are failing. Trump has lifted almost all of the coal regulations but right now foreign oil is so cheap and so plentiful that he's just tied coals dead carcass to the economy. The same is true for farms. Farmers can't survive right now because we have a market surplus. That is normal. That means that many farms will be forced to close, but is not the taxpayers job to sustain them when they are no longer needed. I understand that many communities are dependent on the survival of these businesses, but capitalism can't be interfered with, natural evolution of the market happens, and industries that are no longer sustainable die naturally in order to meet the laws of supply and demand. If people absolutely need their factory job or coal plant job in order to survive, government benefits should be robust enough to help them until they can get back on their feet. And not surprisingly, these massive corporations that need the government to swoop in and save them(such as G.M or Bank of America) often contribute handsomely to political campaigns, further encouraging government intervention in a ideally free market system.
Really, that's my main problem with Trump. He promised to allow American capitalism to flourish, but instead he's bailing out companies that should naturally die(using our tax money) so that the people reliant on those jobs will vote for him and using the Federal Reserve to adjust interest rates to adapt to market conditions(again, direct government intervention in the economy). Its disappointing. I support so much of what he does, but I think that in the long term continuing the "normal" political bailout routine is a recipe for a future recession.
I do not consider myself a Trump supporter, but I hope that he stays in politics regardless because he has moved the Republican party in a positive direction(at least on foreign policy). I will never donate to his campaign.
I consider myself conservative, America has always valued freedom of expression, strict protections of civil liberties, and a transparent, responsible government. These are conservative ideas, and these are all things I support. However, keep in mind that just because I consider myself a conservative does not mean that you define conservative in the same way. Since the 1980s the Republicans have been a scourge on conservative ideals by both expanding the national debt and the powers of the executive at a ludicrous rate. In my opinion the last "Real Conservative" was Senator Barry Goldwater. Maybe Rand Paul today.
I don't even really consider Trump a "real" conservative in any area except foreign policy and regulatory rollbacks. He has made no serious attempts at balancing the national budget and has assumed executive control over many state programs(like the SNAP Standardization program that goes into effect April 1st) , and subsidized farmers and coal miners(a form of borderline socialist market intervention). He's also in favor of allowing the Federal Reserve to adjust interest rates to adapt to market conditions(Typically a liberal idea) I don't fundamentally disagree with all of these policies, I am however concerned that he is continuing a trend(Obama also did this) of stretching executive power and interfering in the economy in order to produce short term benefits, which is exactly what conservative capitalists are against.
I like some of Trump's policies, and I dislike others. I have never met him in person so I can't speak to his personal qualities.
I can't list all of my policy views, but here are a few I feel strongly about.
His North Korea policy has made massive strides towards building a stable relationship. Obama never had the balls to even try to challenge the authority of the Military Industrial Complex. As a South Korean-American, that alone is something that I am deeply thankful for.
I appreciate his appeal to working Americans. Before Trump became POTUS, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan were completely ignored. Now, politicians actually pay attention to what "common people" actually have to say. Its completely changed the political conversation in this country.
I appreciate that he never insults the intelligence of his audience by trying to fool his supporters with words he thinks they don't understand. Its a common political trick I saw more than enough of under Obama,
I support his plan to increase medical cost transparency, and I believe its long overdue.
I'm pretty frustrated by the fact that he seems willing to take boat loads of cash from various lobbying firms and industries. I'm not saying that he can't take money to fuel his campaign, but it sets a bad precedent for the future of money in politics, particularly when most Americans want money OUT of politics.
As for economic policy, I fundamentally disagree with his handling of the economy. I'm a capitalist, but I think that many of Trump's economic choices seem to be motivated by appealing to an electorate rather than building for the future. Since the recession ended under Obama the economy has steadily been getting better. I'm no economist, but I like to study it as hobby, and among other things, I appose his plan to lower interest rates to almost zero, and his de-facto subsidization of the farming industry.
I am strongly pro 2A and pro legalization of Marijuana. On these issues he has done fine.
I'm not sure if I'm more liberal or conservative. I think the problem with labels like these is that they force you to put your opinions in a box. I lean liberal on many policies, but If I just said "I'm a liberal" you would probably assume I'm anti 2nd Amendment and anti capitalism, which I'm not.
I believe that many of Trump's policies are courageous, and I think that other policies are impulsive and poorly thought out. Does that make me scatterbrained? No.
If you wanted a summary of my political leanings you might describe me as a supporter of regulated(but not subsidized) capitalism, non interventionist foreign policy, expansion of entitlement programs for the elderly and disabled, and a hands off social policy(no intermingling of church and state, no 2nd amendment restrictions, legalization of marijuana, legalization of prostitution), lastly I support tighter regulations on campaign finances and political dark money, and I want the Mccain-Finegold act reinstated.
Thank you for the analogy.
Your point about the lack of clear moral boundaries is a good one. When I discuss politics with hardcore Democrats or hardcore Republicans, and I ask them to define corruption, their answer is usually just whoever is in the party they don't like, which is obviously a silly and simplistic way to view things. One thing I have noticed, is that just about everyone agrees that the absurd amount of money that both Democrats and Republicans can make from corporate contributions and the lobbying industry is a serious problem, and is a primary contributor of the intense corruption in Washington DC. The Supreme Court Ruling on Citizens United Vs. FEC was a pretty big enabler for for these kinds of political gifts.
POTUS has been a strong ally of business, and as a result has received massive support from various interest groups, according to the Federal Election Commission and the Center for Responsible Politics. Some of these contributions would not be possible without the Citizens United Ruling, so for some Trump supporters I think that it raises some questions about whether corporate donations and SuperPAC funding should be more strictly regulated or if its better to just allow Trump to use his business savvy to raise as much cash as he can from various industries without having his hands being tied.
That's an interesting perspective. Trump has made medical cost comparisons a lot easier. As a democratic Trump supporter, in the past did you support the passage of the Affordable Health Care Act? It was intended to lower medical costs, which you mentioned was something you support.
When you've decided that an outlet is producing fake news, do you stop paying attention to whatever that outlet does in the future or do you continue to absorb its content regularly in order to maintain a balanced perspective?
Thanks for such well thought out responses. Congratulations on your career success. Ever since the economy rebounded I've been hearing more stories like yours. A tricky thing with the economy is that its difficult to convince liberals its thanks to him because the rebound started under Obama. A corrupt government and CNN actually seems to be things that many liberals are frustrated with as well, indicated by Bernie's nationwide lead among dems.
Thanks. 1- Just for a start, what news sources do you recommend? I'm not online a whole lot and most traditional news media is MSM. With media sources outside of MSM, its hard to confirm credibility. 2- As for source documents, how do you know which ones to trust? Photos and docs can easily be altered. The MSM pulled up photos of Trumps inauguration that had less people in it then the one that the WH released. In a case, like that, how can you tell for sure which one is real? 3- That makes sense. I feel like McConnell and Graham have never really had the peoples interest in mind. It bothers me a little that some swamp monsters are kinda getting off easy though.
I read the study you posted. Essentially it shows that in neighborhoods with more recent immigrants and ethnic diversity, there tends to be less trust.
That proves correlation, not causation.
For example, many studies have shown that in extremely poor neighborhoods that have all white people or all black people, there is less social trust because in neighborhoods that are poor, violence and theft is common, leading neighbors to be wary of each other(Just look at the all black ghettos of downtown Chicago, dangerous ghettos of Mexico, and the dangerous, all white ghettos of Poland/Ukraine). Again, this is true regardless of the race.
Neighborhoods with high levels of racial diversity and recent immigrants are usually poor because immigrating to a new country when you don't speak the language makes it hard to find a decent job. Therefore, because new immigrants can't find good jobs, they move into poor neighborhoods. Because the neighborhoods are poor, there is more violence. Because there is a lot of violence, neighbors don't trust each other. Poverty/violence causes distrust, not diversity.
I grew up in a very poor, very dangerous all white neighborhood in downtown Boston. I was scared walking to school each morning not because of my neighbor's race, but because they were violent crackheads. If they had been black or Mexican crackheads would it have made my situation worse? Of course not, I didn't give a fuck. I just wanted to be safe.
My sister lives in Cambridge, a wealthy suburban town west of Boston. It is highly racially diverse, the 2010 U. S. Census found that 66.6% of Cambridge residents are White, 11.7% Black, 15.1% Asian or Pacific islander and 6.6% classified themselves as some other race or a member of two or more races. The average income is $75,909, and many residents make much more than that, its is also one of the safest and cleanest towns I have ever been to. The town is home to Harvard University, and many wealthy, highly respected intellectuals of Indian, Asian, and African descent have university jobs there and contribute greatly to the local economy. Obviously, sometimes diversity does NOT cause distrust.