I have a friend. We were both at U. IL and were fairly close, but we both left, me 55 years ago, he shortly after. We are not close now, but exchange letters maybe once a year. In a recent letter to me, doubtless in response to a letter from me that assumed he would be voting against Trump, he said that he had twice voted for Trump. I was appalled and have not replied. I don’t know what to say. I thought I knew him.
I think he has been warped by living for 50+ years in Alberta, AKA Texas North. What would you do (assuming you are not a Trumper)?
If the latter, I’d just quote with a comment, “That’s regrettable”, and move on with the rest of the response.
And if he wrote back to complain, I’d start to explain by first pointing out some important bits of the Constitution and then go on to demonstrate that all of the evidence against Trump was established by Republican sources - mostly his own appointees - and in fully transparent, unbiased courts, with high-level lawyers on his side, unable to make a successful case.
“You voted for him TWICE?! That’s election fraud! Oh, you meant two different elections? Sounds like electoral dysfunction, but at your age, that’s not uncommon, don’t worry about it.”
Seeing that 45.93% and 46.80% respectively (notice a higher percentage the second time around) voted for him chances are high you know someone who supported Trump twice.
I have pretty strong political beliefs. But I don’t fill my friend circle based on that one topic.
How boring it must be to surround yourself only with folks who are exactly like you.
Yep, I had three friends who did that- they are no longer friends. I can excuse 2016, but if you voted trump 2020 you support bigotry and government by threats and intimidation. Fortunately we had already drifted apart, and basically were just friends on FB and an occasional card. OTOH, I had over a half dozen solid republican voting friends that became "never trumpers’ after 2016, when they found out the truth.
See, it is not one topic. It is bigotry, government by threats and intimidation, and the intent to end democracy as we know it with a fascist wannabe sorta dictator. That is at least three, and I can list more.
I have a few friends who are anti-abortion- but they became angry after seeing young girls who were raped forced to give birth. So, on this we can compromise= we agree abortion should have some limits but not be totally banned.
And so forth. Reasonable compromise discussion. Not supporting a sort of american fascism.
If they voted trump 2016, but became “never trumpers” by 2020, I forgave them.
No insult intended. Just an opinion based on an observation.
Insisting that everyone you consort with think exactly like yourself sounds dull and robotic to me. Plus, it sounds exclusionary and bigoted as well.
There’s a point where someone goes from being in a position of political disagreement to a territory more in the realm of treason and un-Americanism.
There’s no reason for an American who believes in the Constitution to back the false electors scheme. There’s no reason for an American who believes in the Bill of Rights to back someone who wants to politically persecute his enemies.
If someone’s going around saying that they want to roll back the Constitution, then they’re announcing threats to my family, my descendants, my property, my livelihood and everything else. If they’re announcing enmity, recognizing it as so is just taking that person at their word.
I don’t have a good answer for you and it’s possible that I will be faced with a similar situation in a few days. I’m getting together with an old acquaintance who, on one hand, used to base his beliefs on data and evidence but, on the other hand, was a conservative (Canadian and this was 20 years ago (well pre-Trump)). But he used to, in the '90s, like Rush Limbaugh.
So I really have no idea what to expect. So I am curious as to the various answers here.
There is a difference in just objecting to ‘normal’ political differences, and advocating for a determined authoritarian and proto-fascist demogogue, which Trump quite blatantly is. It is not “dull and robotic” to reject a politician who has openly advocated for political repression, espoused many factually invalid claims, and has told voters that they “won’t have to vote anymore” after electing him, which are explicit echos of late Weimar Germany circa 1933.