You say he’s a physicist? If you want to try to dissuade him, show him how anti-science Trump is. Show him the parts of Project 2025 that harm the research budgets of DoE and DoD, and take down the NSF. When I looked for the research budget killing part for DoD, it was subtle. Project 2025 advocates empowering Assistant Undersecretaries of Defense to kill programs that aren’t working/efficient (for unknown definitions) and moving the money elsewhere. That is Congress’ decision, but it would be moved to some bureaucrat in the “administrative state”.
If he’s a Trump voter, he’s probably a climate change denier (physicists can be stupid, in our own creative ways), but if he’s not a climate denier show him where Project 2025 kills NWS and NOAA (by privatizing them). No more free weather forecasts. If Dear Leader draws a new path for a hurricane with a sharpie, that storm has always been heading for Eastasia. Or was it Eurasia?
When it comes to being anti-science, RFK Jr is even worse, somehow. But moving a vote from Trump is a good thing. If you want to risk your friendship with this guy.
Yeah, I think it’s a fools errand to try and convince someone to vote a certain way unless they express some need of guidance or open-ness. Especially for someone who’s already staked-out a position. If someone is open to persuasion, do not mock, humiliate, and insult them, but instead focus on Trump/Vance and just explain why they are unacceptable to you, and why Harris/Walz is more in-line with your thinking, and just leave it there. About all you can do sometimes is plant the seeds.
I honestly don’t know why any Jewish person would vote for the guy who buddies up with the folks who chant “Jews will not replace us.”
ETA: I know people have different priorities (I’ve often complained about red voters in poor states voting against their interests), but voting for someone who caters to people who literally want to kill you seems like a step further than, say, relying on Medicaid and voting for someone who wants to eliminate it.
Yeah, RFK is arguably nuttier than Trump. But having learned there’s a libertarian in the race, I’m sure that is his third party vote, if he votes 3rd party.
What is less libertarian than preventing individuals from making their own medical decisions? And yet Trump and the current Republican party are all pushing doing that, in more than one area.
Trying to ban immigrants is also certainly not libertarian. Trying to strongly favor one religion is certainly not libertarian.
I will grant that favoring allowing people to dump pollutants all over other (unwilling) people is libertarian.
How you’re going to vote is of course something you’re entitled to keep private if you want; and of course also some discussions aren’t worth having. But isn’t who gets elected everybody’s business? They’ll be affecting everybody’s business once they get into office, after all.
For those who really think the continued future of the country as a democracy is at stake, yes, it’s important.
(Unfortunately there seem to be people of that opinion on both sides; though it seems to me that the facts are quite clear.)
Even for those who just think their individual lives and/or those of their friends/family will be significantly affected one way or the other, it’s important.
But I think also the culture is different here. It’s been normal, all of my life, for people to try to convince others to vote for their preferred candidates. Does Canada manage without any endorsements, letters in the paper, etc.? In local elections, if you don’t know one or more candidates well but at least one of your friends does, don’t you ask that person what they think of them?
I don’t think there’s any sense in trying to convince anyone that Harris is a libertarian. But there might well be some sense in pointing out that Trump certainly isn’t one either.
If “you” have lots of money, then “you” have that option. For those who don’t, it’s not an option; it’s a privation.
If you’re talking about mink coats, fine. If you’re talking about toilet paper and soap, not fine at all. If there’s that much of a shortage, ration it (which, around here at least, groceries routinely did during peak covid and occasionally since; anything they couldn’t get enough of had signs on the shelves, maximum x to a customer.)
I won’t try to convince anyone to vote for Harris. That’s a fools errand around here/my friends/etc., you’ll just dig them in deeper. It honestly applies to most people about anything in casual conversation settings.
It’s all almost pure emotional reasoning, and hard to articulate. I’ll just listen and acknowledge their emotions (e.g., from a Arizona woman…“Trump makes me feel safe” - “It’s good to feel safe” - end of conversation). If the wild stuff comes up, say yea I heard that too, that’s crazy someone would do that…It’s probably all BS, though. They tend to agree or don’t push back. I can feel them using me as a measuring stick. I lose all that the second I try to overtly convince them.
I think it’s important for me to be in that conversation as someone they trust to talk to. I tend to try and plant seeds that I hope will later bloom.
This is the route I take with my Trumpist family and friends (they’re not assholes, but are in media bubbles). Their Christian religion is important to them. I use a soft approach highlighting Harris-Walz’s Christian values without explicitly calling them Christian. For example, their campaign put out a video chat of them talking about being neighborly. The chat really highlights how the candidates share the same Christian values. It might not seem like much, but for people who only hear demonizations, even a little humanization helps.
My general advice:
Be positive; focus on Harris-Walz’s virtues, not Trump-Vance’s vices.
Don’t be pushy or imply you have any expectations about what the listener should do. Be clear that you’re talking only about your views.
Actually listen to them. And don’t reply in any way that sounds like a rebuttal.
Maintain your personal connections to who you’re talking to. Always end the conversation with something reinforcing a connection.
These are actually general “people” skills that we should all be practicing all the done, but it’s good to have some introspection about it.
The one avowed libertarian I know well strongly believes Chump will be horrible for the nation and himself, and must be defeated. Just one anecdata point.
geez, it must be nice to be able to instantly evaluate the goodness of a person you have never met based on such a brief description…especially when the person that actually knows them (Puzzlegal) states the opposite.
I live in rural western Pennsylvania. If I totally cut off all interactions with “troglodytes”, I’d only talk to my gf, two neighbors, and four or five other folks.
A hardcore economic libertarian really shouldn’t be voting for either of them. A primarily social libertarian (which likely isn’t this guy) should be voting for Harris.
The description contained all the salient points I needed for an evaluation. Just like I can immediately evaluate the goodness of someone with a MAGA hat, a copy of Dianetics or a God Hates Fags sign.
They’ve stated they believe they can change. But they haven’t said anything that actually overturns the idea that their friend right now isn’t “a decent guy”.
“Transphobe” and “decent guy” are mutually exclusive. puzzlegal may not believe that, but I do.
That’s leaving aside what I think about libertarians…
I wouldn’t live in a place where that was the case, but each to their own.
If Harris was really advocating for Soviet-style price controls on basic goods, that would be totally unconscionable to a libertarian, or really anyone that considers themselves even capitalist-leaning. Trump isn’t a libertarian’s best friend, but he sure isn’t advocating anything like that.
I don’t think she’s actually doing that either, but there’s not a huge amount of ground between that and policies that don’t actually do anything (but may still have populist appeal). And there’s not enough detail yet to figure out where on that narrow spectrum the policy lies. As I said, I haven’t read anything yet about it being limited to emergencies or whatever (though that may be the case).
That said, there are other policies that could be attractive to a pragmatic libertarian. Biden has pushed for Medicare drug price negotiation. A libertarian isn’t going to support Medicare–but given that it actually exists and isn’t going anywhere, a libertarian should support negotiation, so that the government at least gets a market price. As compared to the crony capitalist version where they weren’t allowed to negotiate prices.
The OP says the friend is smart. So I’m inclined to believe that they can handle this sort of second-order thinking (i.e., “you don’t support X, but given that X exists, you should still support policy Y that makes X as good as possible”). That isn’t going to turn him into a Harris supporter but may give him some food for thought.