You make the mistake that was identified upthread, assuming there is no rational reason to vote for Trump.
You also make the mistake of assuming single issue voters will never vote for a Democrat - this is also wrong. The Democrat in question need only support the single issue they favor more than the opposition candidate. Since Democratic candidates are not a monolithic group, I think this is entirely possible.
I am having trouble understanding what this is supposed to mean. Taken at face value, no, this thread really isn’t about that. That you think it is could explain the disconnect.
I snipped the rest of this paragraph, but the theme is consistent so I don’t think it changes the meaning. Let me know if you think I’ve captured it erroneously. To this I would respond that I would take a step back even further. The power to create is also the power to destroy - the executive branch has extremely wide latitude in how it operates. Within that latitude is a high degree of unchecked power. You’re concerned that Trump will abolish various agencies - why should the executive have that power at all? If the mission of an agency is so necessary, should it be able to be abolished at the whim of one person? We may argue on which agency should do what, and what the scope of what each agency is, but if something is so vital to the fabric of our country I would argue they shouldn’t be able to be abolished. By giving so much power to the executive, they are given the power to abolish them as well. I don’t have a ready solution for this, but if you want to ensure the long life and existence of some agency you believe is critical, then almost certainly the existence of said agency shouldn’t rest on the whims of one person.
I do think we should significantly reduce military spending. The magnitude is debateable. I want to reduce all spending generally, which would allow us to have more resources for worthwhile spending.
This may be semantics, but I think you would also consider a certain level of suffering to be acceptable. I assume you do not donate all of your worldly belongings to those less fortunate. You have the ability to decrease suffering at the margins, but you choose to stop doing so at some point. A homeless person is certainly worse off than you, but you do not take them into your home en masse. We as a society accept these things, even though we have the resources to alleviate them. We do this because we’ve accepted a certain level of suffering. Unless all people’s suffering were equalized, this must be true.
This also isn’t true. One can easily acknowledge the good fortune of being born here and now, without accepting a responsibility to do various things. One can still do these things altruistically without accepting a responsibility to do them. I think your analysis says that if x, then y while ignoring all sorts of other possibilities.
I don’t think this is right either. The current strategy really could have worked but for a butterfly in Hoboken. The results were close enough that very very minor things could have transpired to yield a different result. It would be overstating the impact to conclude that wholesale changes in strategy are necessary to yield a different result.
No it’s not. See, unsupported opinion based on nothing is easy. As is often the case, I am unable to comprehend what you are trying to say with the rest of your post.
I suspect that by the above sentence you actually mean “I have no bias against reasonable reasons for voting for Trump however I do not believe any exist.”
Is that a correct interpretation of your thought?
Trump has been all over the place. However, he is fairly coherent in one aspect, put the U.S. first. The whole theme has been to ‘Make America Great Again’, ya know, his slogan. He was pretty consistent during the election on that point.
Bolding mine. It isn’t that hard. There were, for all intents and purposes, two choices in the election. Clinton and Trump.
People rank things. For some people social justice might be high on the list for the next President. For others, lower taxes might be high on the list. Given that people rank things and that the two choices were Clinton and Trump, it is quite easy to* look at the stated or expected* policy positions for Clinton and Trump and make a choice.
That choice doesn’t mean that you like the person. It doesn’t mean that you agree with everything they say. It means, that after looking at the candidates you picked the one with the higher likely hood of following through on policy positions you think are best.
It isn’t hard. I suspect that your problem in understanding Trump voters is in separating Trump from the voters. The people I know who voted for Trump can list the reasons why they voted for Trump. More importantly, they can list reasons why Clinton voters voted for Clinton.
Actually, for the purposes of this thread, what Trump says is fairly trivial. It is what people who voted for Trump *think *that matters.
Take immigration. Trump has the wall, the travel ban, etc. I suspect that you are against those things. The Trump voters I know have different thoughts about each piece. Most are in the same boat I am on illegal immigration and that is, it ought to be stopped. However, they also tend to agree with me that legal immigration is a good thing and that stopping illegal immigration is important but fixing legal immigration is important as well. We ought to have legal immigration fixed so that a) people who are legally immigrating are vetted as best we can and b) it is done in a reasonable time frame. That is a simple area of disagreement (or I suspect it is) that can be discussed rationally.
The voters had two choices. Both choices lie. Yes, Trump lied more (a lot) than Clinton but Clinton lied as well*. After that, you have a choice between someone who tells whoppers but consistently states support for *some *policies you agree with or you have a person who also lies but consistently states support for policies you disagree with. Which one do you choose?
Ignoring the fact that there aren’t a lot of Trump voters on this board, I listed rational reasons to vote for Trump. You dismiss them and then state that it is impossible to have a rational reason to vote for Trump. There is a lot of irrationality happening, but not from who you think.
Tell me what rational reason can you think of to vote for Trump? Just one. If you cannot think of one, the failure is with you, not the Trump voters.
Slee
On Politifact, Clinton rates 26% mostly false, false or pants on fire. 24% half true.
This is the OP and I assume what the thread is about. Donald’s incoherency is at issue in this thread from what I can read here. I’m sure that you don’t want to address the rest of my post but we all knew you wouldn’t. Do you understand that Bone?
I idnetfied rational reasons for voting for Trump. The problem is is that they come from a philosophy of the purpose and obligations of society that I disagree with. Those people and I cannot come to an agreement without one of us chaning our fundemental views of what we all are here for. So, while I can follow the rational, I cannot start at the same place to come to the same conclusion, and I doubt that they can either.
My hope is that there are those who voted for trump not out of rational enlightened self interest, but out of hope and or desperation, in a way that can be shown that they they did not vote in the manner that will get the results that they desire. Once that is identfied, I blieve these peopel will come back to the progressive side of the ailse very quicjkly.
And to this, I am talking about all the coal minors who though trump would bring back their jobs, but he is actually cutting thier safety net and healthcare, while making the envrironment they live in unlivable. I am talking about the blue collar worker who expected trump to bring his job back from overseas and give it back to him with the same compensation and benifts that factory jobs had in previous decades. I culd go on, but you get my point, and it is less to snip for you. Point being, there are people who voted for Trump becuase of the promises that he implied, and when those are not only not fulfulled, but actibvely worked against, I do hope they will support a more progressive candidate in the future, not just at noational but at local levels too.
Democrats aren’t going to change their position on abortion, soi that’s a group that will not change, while I see democrats softening their position on guns, they will always feel that guns are too easy to get and carry, while the pro0gun crowd feels that there are too many restrictions on guns, so there is unlikely to be common ground there either. As far as religion, to be honest, I use that as a shorthand for those who justify their policy positions based on their fixed interpretation of the bible, rather than on secular facts.
These are not voters that will change sides without either the parties radically changing their platform to no longer represent the ideals that they currently do, or the voters radically changing their views and priorities. Neither is likely. I will agree not impossible, but these are certainly not the low hanging fruit of voters to be looking into.
Hey, you got me on that. I’ve never felt that having a single president with the power that he has is a great idea. But, that’s the system that we have, set up by the constitution, just like the electoral college that helped Trump win. If you want to join me in pushing for a constitutional amendment to make the presidency a more limited parliamentary like system, I’d be down for that. I also kind of like the idea of a triumvirate, rather than a single person in charge.
But, your point was that this demonstrates why we should be afraid of a large government. I am not afraid of a large government, I am only afraid of single people with as much power as he has.
And, to be honest, the president doesn’t have all that much power. His power is checked by the other branches of government. The fact that all three are all in the hands of those who have ideological views that are far removed from my own concerns me. Working together, they can dismantle the government far more effectively that Trump could if he were elected with a democratic majority. Just as the republicans managed to prevent the democratic policies of Obama from being implemented nearly as much as those on the left would have liked, a democratic opposition would prevent Trump from removing as much of the government as the right would like.
Magnitude is definitely debatable. I definitely feel we should have enough of a military to prevent others from thinking that it would be a good idea to invade us, and having a bit excess to lend to world stability, along with other partners in the international community is a good thing.
the problem is, even if you have the smallest military you can think you need for those services, it’s still a large enough military to wreak quite bit of havoc in the wrong hands.
I do consider there to be an acceptable level of suffering. And that acceptable level is less than it was yesterday, and tomorrow, it will be lower still. To quantify the exact amount of suffering that exists, that is alleviated, and that is inevitable is not only pretty much impossible, but really won’t do much good. Where we are on the scale is not nearly as important as whether we are going up or down that scale.
I agree. There are those who do not accept the responsibility for paying back for their good fortune. This is a tragedy of the commons. Everyone wants to just have their own good fortune, and go with it. Unfortunately, this creates a negative sum game, where everyone is fighting over dwindling wealth. This is why the government needs to step in, and ensure that those who choose not to give back to society still contribute some amount to keep things going. This is done through taxes. Wealth redistribution is not a nasty phrase when you realize that wealth tends to aggregate. Those with more tend to get more. The wealthy get wealthier. It’s the nature of any economy. With no way to redistribute that wealth, the income inequality will only increase. This is why those who receive a larger share of wealth need to return a larger share of it to society, whether or not they accept that responsibility.
And that is exactly why I have no problem writing off the majority of Trump supporters. We only need a few to realize that their best interest lay with the party that supports a social safety net and healthcare and other things that reduce suffering and misfortune.
We do not need to reach out to the single issue voters or any of the other Trump supporters that voted for him for rational reasons.
Reasonable reasons is your construct. I don’t have any biases about it. But I don’t own what you may project. I don’t make up the reasons. They must be forwarded by a rational trump voter. Why ask me?
Donald is not making america great at all. anyone would see that. He is making us fearful, brittle, a laughing stock, and he is destroying our credibility. That didn’t start after the election. It was in full view for voters. Do you mean that someone might adopt him for his use of a phrase, and just never question what it meant through the whole campaign, then vote for him. That’s a “reasonable reason” as you would have it?
I get that there are one issue voters. The Nazis got a lot of one issue voters too I would guess. Was that rational? It depends on how you viewed the downside of voting nazi. Maybe you never had good experiences with jews. Much of it came after the election and was only latent before 1933. I know it was a different time, but in our case donald has been dog and wolf whistling like a maniac for 5 or 6 years. We know he was selling used cars (I would never tell you something I don’t believe!) and some of us want to know why people would all of the sudden go from circumspect yankee trader to “I’m gonna buy the first used car I see! Lock Her Up!!”
But the assertion of “one issue” as a reason doesn’t make a dialogue with all voters and doesn’t say it is possible. With one issue voters likely it’s not. A dialogue would have to account for how bad donald was as a candidate, in addition to the one issue. You can say Hillary is as bad as donald but most people won’t see this as a “reasonable reason” to squander american credibility and treasure. That argument is an “eyes closed” state. Because if you hadn’t noticed, donald is out of his mind.
ummm, my last post I hit post instead of preview when I had clients come in, and just went back to review it and realized that. Apologies for quite a few typos in there, and a few of my thoughts were not quite as well fleshed out as I would like, but I don’t have time for a whole new post now.
“Trump is incoherent” might be a good olive-branch to extend in seeking common ground. Is it a common opinion among Trumpists?
The Trump Administration has already announced sharp reductions in science funding, at the EPA and NOAA. The nominee to head FDA is an “American Enterprise Institute scholar” who opposes careful trials to ensure drug safety. Trump has appointed opponents of regulation to head the SEC and CFTC — the very agencies which had hoped to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis.
One might argue that decimating federal science programs and deregulating Big Pharma and Wall Street are desirable. But I wouldn’t classify them as “Nothing much of substance.”
Really? I didn’t know I was Barack Obama or the DNC chair. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Give me a fuckin’ break.
I am neither running for office nor getting appointed to a high government post. I couldn’t care less what the other side thinks of my ‘rhetoric.’ I call 'em like I see 'em, and, baby, the Republicans are selfish, moneygrubbing, end-justifying-the-means control freaks, and they’re not even covert let alone repentant about it. Deal with that. I’m not going to mollycoddle them like they’re 4-year-olds. I’ll call them out on their bullshit as early and often as possible. It’s really too bad if you don’t like it.
Love the double standard here. We’re talking about politics, and politicians in the main, whatever their party affiliation, are compromised to some degree. But on the spectrum, Republicans are far further to the evil end than Dems. Doesn’t mean there aren’t conscientious people on either side, but overall Republicans are deplorable, and I deplore the fuck out of them.
People don’t like to hear this, and I’ve said it before and am sure what the reaction will be, but Trump is the personification of the majority of his supporters. Gullible, ignorant, self-serving, delusional, and utterly incapable of compromise. Sorry, I don’t give them an inch, nor do I give them a pass when they pull the heinous shit that they do.
A large number can’t see that. They hero-worship the freak. But the rest, and they’re actually even worse, DO see it, and still manage to rationalize themselves into supporting him. And not a one of them assumes responsibility for electing him.
The Hillary thing is 95% bullshit manufactured by the Republican feces-flinging machine, and it’s plain that you bought into it hook, line and sinker. It’s not ‘obvious truth,’ it’s a quarter of a century of overwhelmingly untrue personal attacks. But hey, keep telling yourself how much of an evil genius she was. Hope it keeps you warm at night.
Based on various comments by Trump supporters, some found in this thread, the following analogy comes to mind, (To the extent that analogies are useful to anyone.):
Trump is a shattered mirror. The pieces are lying on the floor and a crowd is gathered round. Light reflects in all directions and people move around catching reflection of things they recognize of themselves while rejecting others that don’t fit. It’s an incoherent picture but it’s one everyone can buy into because each person picks and chooses that which reflects their priorities and values.
This, more than any other, is Trump’s talent. Whether you’re a single issue voter, or a pro-small government voter, or an anti-liberal republican, or a xenophobe, or a bigot of any stripe… everybody recognizes something of themselves in the reflections of Trump’s rhetoric.
I agree with the characterization of HRC by that great polemicist, Christopher Hitchens. She was the worst possible choice to represent the Democrats in this election, and as much as anything else that went wrong with this election, I blame her candidacy for creating an atmosphere that encouraged the emergence of Trump.
That said, she is still eminently more qualified for the position of POTUS. While far from inspirational, she would have served the country well.
I think it’s a mistake abdelhafid a tad disingenuous to blame Hillary Clinton for this. America has suffered from chronic trogloditis since birth and Trump represents a flare-up.
Not everybody. I’ve never been fooled by the Con Man in Chief. My distaste for this boorish narcissist goes back to the Robin Leach days. I’ve literally been banging the drum since I first joined here a little over a year ago. If you had asked me, before he even announced his candidacy, who the worst possible person to elect President would be, a number of options would have come to mind, but only one would immediately jump out as the answer. And we’ve got him right now.
I’ve wanted to ask those single-issue voters this question now that we have the advantage of hindsight: Was the chance that Hillary might have displeased you on your one issue worth the multitude of ways that Trump is an embarrassment to the country and a literal danger to your way of life? If you can answer Yes to that, you’re beyond help and a waste of time to even think about convincing otherwise.
Hillary’s a lousy campaigner but a good politician. I have a lot of trouble blaming her (or her campaign strategists) based on what happened in the runup to the election. Christ, even the FBI Director lined himself up against her in contravention of every protocol.
As far as his emergence, you may as well blame the lineup of Republican candidates none of whom could counter his BS. (I’m sure Jeb thought he was a shoo-in for the nomination until Trump ripped him a new one.) Or Faux News for perfectly positioning and fostering his candidacy in the minds of the delusionals. Or the media as a whole for gifting him with over a billion dollars in free publicity. Or normalizing and legitimizing his views by treating them as if they were anything but the ravings of a misanthropist power junkie.
Bill Maher interviewed Jake Tapper last night on Real Time and he spoke to that last issue among others. It’s probably on Youtube by now; check it out.
