Quote:
Originally Posted by L0LWAT
I linked hundreds of policies that have impact zero rhetoric. GOP policy caters to the rich, they literally use the poor. You've got it exactly backwards: MAGA rhetoric is populist and policy is not.
You linked hundreds of policies that have only impact on trans people, not homosexuals. So why did you use "anti LGBTQ+" instead of anti-trans? yes the right is anti-trans activism and completly disagrees with the left about what trans rights are (for us there are none, trans don't gain any right by being trans and no one in society has to do anything to accomodate their trans-ness), that is known. And polls of voters agree with the right about this.
If you want to claim "it would be better" if 11 years old can access puberty blockers if they feel like they are of the opposite sex, or that people with dicks have a right to compete in sports agains women, keep doing that, if you want to claim it's a "right" to have access to those drugs at 11, or to partecipate in opposite sex sports, or to be jailed in opposite sex prisons, read the constitution again, or the , you know, universal declaration of human rights, and find if you are correct or not about that.
As for MAGA policies, some are pro rich some aren't. Tax cuts are pro rich ofc. Tariffs aren't, for one rich supplier of a good that gains with tariffs there are a ton of rich consumers (including rich owners of companies that use that good in the production process) that are worse off. Tariffs do not help rich people in aggregate.
Anti-immigration policies don't help the rich. The rich don't pay the costs of excessive, unfiltered immigration. They don't lose service access because of overcrowding, as they don't use public services to begin with. The schools their kids go in don't go down in quality because non-english speaking kids flood them. Their neighborhoods don't get more dangerous because jobless , skill-less immigrants flock there. Their wages don't go down because of competition for the same jobs (at least at the beginning), because rich people either have jobs protected by regulatory barriers, or don't have normal jobs to begin with (being rich usually means being able to live very well without ever working again).
The companies rich people own lose with less immigration. They can't fill jobs as well as before. They have to give raises and compete for scarcer workers. That applies both for low skilled immigration and for high skilled immigration. Very rich people want open borderism, it's blatantly better for them from all points of view and they don't pay the costs of it.