That's what I said...or actively seeking them (jobs)...They voted on his promise to bring jobs back. Otherwise why would they vote for him?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That's what I said...or actively seeking them (jobs)...They voted on his promise to bring jobs back. Otherwise why would they vote for him?
I think trying to find a simple answer for why 62,793,872 people did anything is impossible. To say, "they did it because of jobs."
Or to say the 65,432,202 million people who voted for Hil were public assistance recipients afraid of losing their benefits and SJW's (mostly college students radicalized by left-wing professors) is neglecting the complexity and nuance of the truth.
I think you're part right, but to focus on that sliver of rightness ignores the larger picture.
That's all.
I was writing a short comment, not a book!
Yeah, that's fair. But I guess I would encourage myself and everyone to not use hyperbolic language when talking about groups of people. Those sweeping generalizations have an impact on the tone of cultural conversation, yknow?
It makes it hard to have a conversation when the complex perspectives of 65 million people are explained away as a product of simply wanting government assistance or being brainwashed by professors.
There's a lot more going on than that, and it is so reductive it essentially adds nothing to the conversation. Is that unfair to say?