I want to listen to your concerns. So you tell me: Affordable healthcare is the deciding factor. I look to the facts and say "No, that doesn't make sense. That can't be it. What are you not telling me?"
You assume that I assume that his "True feelings" are racist.
We could get in to why he considers a third term of Obama's policies to be bad. A blanket statement of "Everything Obama did is terrible forever" also doesn't help describe your brother's true feelings.
On the issue of trust, the choice between "Career Politician" and "80's Businessman" is kind of a toss up. So again, we would need to go in to detail.
I really don't think there has been 'plenty of time' to fix the Affordable Care Act. It was enacted in 2010, majorly phased in in 2014, and will continue to phase in in 2020. So, the magnitude and reach of this is going to take some serious time come to grips with in order to find and fix the problems.
Obviously he is innocent until proven guilty. But an unfounded rejection of the candidate who's message is based on inclusiveness looks a lot like evidence that he is guilty.
So, how do we get the discussion of whether his objections are unfounded?
You assume that I assume that his "True feelings" are racist.
We could get in to why he considers a third term of Obama's policies to be bad. A blanket statement of "Everything Obama did is terrible forever" also doesn't help describe your brother's true feelings.
On the issue of trust, the choice between "Career Politician" and "80's Businessman" is kind of a toss up. So again, we would need to go in to detail.
I really don't think there has been 'plenty of time' to fix the Affordable Care Act. It was enacted in 2010, majorly phased in in 2014, and will continue to phase in in 2020. So, the magnitude and reach of this is going to take some serious time come to grips with in order to find and fix the problems.
Obviously he is innocent until proven guilty. But an unfounded rejection of the candidate who's message is based on inclusiveness looks a lot like evidence that he is guilty.
So, how do we get the discussion of whether his objections are unfounded?