Out of 30 million or 50 million Trump supporters, there have got to be some who don’t/aren’t.
Wrong ! I knew a guy who became gay b/c he was trying to get love from a man b/c he never got it from his dad. And I knew a woman that became b/c her father slammed her head against an iron cast radiator when she was child and made her hard of hearing . I knew a few people that choose to be gay !
…ah? 
:dubious:
I would like to believe that. Convince me.
Ivanka?
According to the polls, 40% of the country supports Donald Trump. If you’re incapable of engaging in constructive, critical discourse with 40% of the country, maybe the problem is on your end.
The chances of there being no such folks out of 30-50 million are lottery odds.
No, because to be considered “bigotry” a position must typically satisfy two criteria:
(1) Be concerning an aspect of inherent identity; and
(2) Be an untrue, disparaging generalization concerning people having that identity.
There are I suppose legitimate arguments that the disparaging generalizations concerning Trump supporters are untrue (though equally, there are arguments the other way …).
However, there is no way being a Trump supporter is an aspect of someone’s inherent identity. No-one is born a Trump supporter.
Okay. So what specific policies or positions espoused by Trump would they be in support of that aren’t motivated by ignorance, fear or bigotry?
Regarding #1 (because I think we both agree the second criteria was met), there are plenty of people in this country that consider their political beliefs to be a bigger and more important “aspect of [their] inherent identity” than their religious beliefs. It wouldn’t surprise me if Hillary Clinton (or most other successful, high-ranking politicians) felt this way.
I guess the debate hinges on this: is the list of character traits that satisfy #1 of your two-part test something that’s fixed and standardized, the same for everyone, and unchanging, or is it something that each individual can decide for themselves, with some people feeling their their religion is part of their “inherent identity” and therefore bigoted to make disparaging generalizations about, while others feel that their veganism or political affiliation, or professed gender or race, are a key component of their “inherent identity”? What if I was born into a household that loved the Oakland Raiders? What if I consider supporting the Raiders to be a part of my inherent identity? Would it be bigoted to speak ill of them to me?
The right to purchase rifles chambered in .223 and painted black?
Is this an AR-15 reference?
As I understand it, a substantial number of Trump supporters want to shake up the establishment, or are tired of “same old politics.” They share that in common with many Bernie supporters.
That’s one rifle that would fit those parameters, so … sort of, yeah, I guess.
I think the test is objective, not subjective.
If I make outrageous, disparaging generalizations about Oakland Raiders fans, I’m not committing the same sort of offence as if I make outrageous, disparaging generalizations about Jews or Blacks, and no amount of folks insisting that subjectively they regard their Oakland Raider fandom as an essential part of their identity transforms the act into “bigotry” - because reasonable folks would agree that being Black, or Jewish, is more integral to one’s identity than being a fan of a particular sports team.
That analysis may not stop an Oakland Raiders fan sticking a fist in my face, though.
Okay, I’ve heard people say that. But what exactly does “shake up the establishment” mean? Shake it up in what way? What specific policies would they like to see implemented that are espoused by Trump? I mean, I’m sure we’d all like to see America Great and everything… but great is what specific ways and how would they go about accomplishing those goals?
Okay. So that’s one: Trump supporters want to be able to continue to purchase .223 caliber guns. What are some others?
It takes some big balls to post your rant here.
Maybe some of them find the tax plan he laid out the other night appealing. Maybe some feel like his border security and immigration reform message is important in an age of terrorism. Look, this is really basic stuff, I have a hard time believing you didn’t know he has actual rational policy positions. They’re on his website and in speeches he gives. Why is it hard to imagine people being attracted to those positions?
Oh, many haven’t thought it that far down the road yet. Right now they’re just pining hard for the shock and dismay on the faces of TV pundits on Election Night, and the Twitter/Facebook meltdown on social media, and the establishment giving a stunned, awkward concession speech on Election Night, with a “what-just-happened” deer-in-the-headlights look on their faces, and half of the nation going berserk.
But now to discuss the more nefarious elements of Trump supporters: It reminds me of how people were trying to name a ship “Boaty McBoatface” or of how people hijacked Mountain Dew’s “Dub the Dew” drink-naming campaign by voting “Hitler Did Nothing Wrong” to the No. 1 top of the drink-name list. Some people get a schaudenfreude kick out of deliberately voting in someone, or something, that is unacceptable, just to see the reaction. They *know *Trump is appalling, that’s *why *they want to see him in the Oval Office, to see the establishment’s horror.