[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I don't think being black and white is all that black and white. Being B/W on personal, impactful and intimate issues is different than being B/W on abstract, impersonal and far removed issues, at least I thought it was until Trump.

Being intolerant of issues that merely requires a declaration of intolerance seems to be the essence of Trump. Being intolerant of issues that requires personal sacrifice or consequences seems all together different.

This is not to just pick on Trumpers, For example, my Facebook has been flooded with people saying, "unfriend me if you support Trump." Knowing 1) they have no Trump friends, 2) that is about the extent of their political activism. I think it's a 21st century problem. New media has promoted the idea all opinions are equal in passion and intent.

I agree with that part. Have to think about the other parts and the other reasons behind it, but that certainly rings true in my world.

Originally Posted by stevew

Ted Cruz: “Listen, Donald does well with voters who have relatively low information, who are not that engaged and who are angry and they see him as an angry voice. Where we are beating him is when voters’ get more engaged and they get more informed. When they inform themselves, they realize his record. He’s what they’re angry at. He is the corruption, and if you want someone to stand up to Washington, the only one who has been doing so in this race is me.”

Cruz firing shots.

This actually might have been an amazing campaign platform. "You hate politicians, and fear candidates will say one thing and do another? Well I've gone to Washington, I've stood on principle, and every single person there hates me for it. Do you trust Donald Trump to follow through when even his own party is pushing him to compromise? Why elect an outsider who might follow through instead of the person who is clearly despised for doing it."

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Question for FOFCers:

So the candidates are saying tonight that we need to raise the retirement age for future generations.

Let's say a bill like that is signed today. When it is time to raise the the retirement age, will we actually follow through? Or will we get some stop-gap bills to keep the retirement age as-is?

Like Jon said, we've already raised it. An absurdly low amount to be sure, but gradual increases are really not controversial. The amount of physical stress in most jobs is much lower, general health care is much better, thus it's a no brainer that the theoretical ideal retirement age should be raised. If you told 62 year olds today their SS qualifying age would go from 65 to 70? Good luck. But if you tell 55 year olds it'll go up 1 year, 45 year olds 2 years, 35 year olds 3 years, and phase things in gradually and with a long lead time it's easy.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....

I figured out how Trump's going to get Mexico to "pay for that wall".

The U.S. gives Mexico about $500M/year in foreign aid. He'll just cut that until it matches the cost. Can be a multi-year cut.

And increasing tariffs. I certainly have no idea nor care to learn the specifics, but I fully believe there's a ton of dumb stuff in NAFTA that's poorly understood by politicians and taken advantage of by companies (companies on both sides of the border and often benefits American companies or consumers sure, but there's clearly corruption and loopholes on every side of a large issue like that). Anyone implying Trump's going to just ask the Mexican government to cut a check is clearly not worth engaging.

(I'm also strongly pro free-trade, but it clearly benefits hard working foreigners (and American consumers!) at the expense of lazy or dumb Americans. I just don't think that's a bad thing.)