I’d say the often hysterical reaction to the election of Trump and his executive orders is baffling to me, but based on my view of politics, it isn’t baffling at all – it’s something I expected. However, I don’t see much in the way of rational, principled justification for the kind of over-the-top anti-Trump behavior we find not only at the street level, but also in the implied (if not outright) consent and support such intimidating and violent tactics are often provided in public forums by many politicians and media figures. We’ve had people call for the removal of Trump by “any means necessary” and calling for impeachment, military coups and even assassination.
From my perspective, the hysteria is fueled by two things; an identity-politics, virtue-signalling culture that is largely bereft of critical thinking skills and any foundation of reasoned, civil discourse; and an information/media complex that signals, via various figures of authority or popularity, preferred behaviors. (I’ll leave out my third view: that third-party manipulators are paying for agitation towards political and financial ends).
I voted for Trump purely because I agreed with virtually all of his platform. Usually when I encounter someone who didn’t vote for Trump, I immediately notice an obvious emotional quality to their perspective – they hate or are disgusted by the guy personally, but can’t even tell me what his policy positions are. They immediately assume I am racist, misogynistic, islamophobic, etc.
I wonder if it’s possible to have a rational discussion about Trump and his policies and actions since being elected with anyone who voted against him? Do any of you think the way he is being characterized by the mainstream media is unfair? Do any of you think that there has been a double-standard from the way people and the press reacted to Obama’s actions, and the way they are reacting to Trump’s? Do any of you think the election was “illegitimate”?
‘fess up Joe. You voted for man-baby Trump because he promised to bring back the toaster repairman job you got laid off of.
You should think about this a little harder. It’s not really so amazing if it isn’t actually hysteria. Trump is right. He could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight, and guys like you and William would defend him and probably throw in something stupid about Obama or some Clinton or other.
By things being better, Frankie probably means that that the trains will run on time, like they did under Mussolini. That won’t actually happen though. Trump’s projects are generally over-budget even though many contractors don’t get paid at all.
OTOH, the stock market will go crazy for awhile with all the deregulation and elimination of consumer protections that his Goldman-Sachs cabal are pining for.
It’ll crash again, but not before his gang of thieves run off with many millions.
Meanwhile, what the hell should we all be doing about those bastards at Nordstroms???
I like you walto. But it’s comments just like this one that convince me that the anti-Trump crowd is utterly irrational. You may as well assert that if Trump raped your daughters that I’d be cool with it. What on earth would lead you to think so?
I didn’t vote for Trump. Did you know that?
It’s not hard to understand at all.
All the biologists in the world: Evolution is real.
Science Deniers: Naaaahhhhh.
All the astrophysicists in the world: The Big Bang is real.
Science Deniers: Naaaahhhhh.
All the climatologists in the world: Global Warming is real.
Science Deniers: Naaaahhhhh.
All the economists in the world: Supply Side economics is garbage
Science Deniers: Naaaahhhhh.
All the interrogation professionals in the world: torture is counterproductive and immoral.
Science Deniers: Naaaahhhhh.
It’s not hard to understand, it’s just being a contrarian idiot.
I was quoting Trump. He said it–and I think he was right.
And he proves it again every single day. If he put a convicted pollution dumper as the head of the EPA, called Frederick Douglass his uncle, appointed his wife to the Supreme Court, sent the National Guard to close down Nordstroms and threatened to go to war with Australia, I don’t think he’d lose more than a couple dozen supporters. And the fuckwits in Congress would do just what they’re doing now.
Embarrassing, pathetic display.
The democrats you mean? No doubt.
I’m canadian and haven’t paid much attention to American poltics for years now.
i
I’m glag Trump beat hilary but I don’t like some of his ideas or him as leader.
Obama was worse of coarse.
The fact is lots of yanks voted for him. Hilary ran on a identtoty platform, as did Obama, and as the democratic party does.
i think it is identity passions that are behind everything today. not money or education or security. Trump is fanatical about ethnic identities but has a different
list.
What should be done is the whole democratic party be taken to court as a illegal entity. this on the charge it conspires against true americans. it represents identies that have broken contract with their allowance into the nation or, in the case of women, into a mans society.
Actually this started after the civil war with the southerners and european coalition.
Thats the great problem.
For example they must be reminded that immigration is a gift of the native and not a moral obligation. So keeping out people is a morally right answer and fighting that is immoral. Good reasons, not needed, are given anyways.
America seems a divided home just like Canada. Canada is more servile and not a true free government. its a court tyrannyIts illegal also.
The good guys in america are the traditional comman man but he is too comman. he always needs smart leadership.
There is no Reagan today and so bad people are getting their way.
Trump promises better judges but i doubt it.
the best judges should come from the long settled yankee/southern male upper class. Today its ethnic/women agendas that dumb down jurisprudence and introduce agendas.
its the best of times for wealth and fun but the worst for justice, equity, true government, and wisdom to bring safety to the world.
Trump should be asked to lead the nation in a great overthrow of state censorship in public institutions. Thats something ID/YEC folks should ask and show how to do it.
Something that matters.
Obama accomplished nothing but more segregational concepts. He was a great waste of leadership. Trump seems headed that way.
This thread must be preserved for years to come, so we can point and laugh at how WJM and Frankie got it so badly wrong.
WJM,
Which techniques?
phoodoo,
Excellent. Never doubted ya, man!
It’s not a think thing. It’s a feel thing, the department where Trump plays with full success.
I wasn’t implying anything about you, but about Trump voters, a whole different bunch of people. I was expressing a sarcastic note prompted by your comment, but directed at the situation of USA, not at your person. Is that so hard to grasp? I guess I should have foreseen that you get creeped out by the fact that we are on the same side in this issue and I should have omitted quoting you.
Both of them. I’m glad I’m not an american, you seem to have a choice between being raped with or without lube. Either way, you’re going to end up with a bleeding rectum. Yet the people on both sides seem to be hating each other with religious fervor. Of course, that is the whole point.
While fat rich sociopaths are looting the country by setting up laws in their favor (by buying politicians to propose and vote for those laws), they’ve managed to set this system up so that the general population thinks everything wrong with the country is the fault on the people on the other side. Damn liberals, damn conservatives, damn demoncrats, damn republicans. And you lap it up every time. As a non-american I feel like clawing my own eyes out every time US election time comes around. It’s so surreal to behold. A friend of mine described it like the Jim Carrey film The Truman Show. The american population is Truman, being manipulated and goaded around and presented with threats and dangers from overseas or “the other side”, so the status quo can be maintained by self-serving corporatist sociopaths. While you’re all busy bickering about muslims and welfare, billionaire bankers and military industries are robbing you yet again.
The election of Trump was in some sense a rebellion against that, but who is Trump? The very essence of the sort of person who buys politicans so they can set up the system for his benefit. The Irony is outright depressing. You’ve been had, AGAIN. For the tenth time in a row, another bought and paid for robber-baron has been put in charge, on the same ridiculous politics of fearmongering and tribalism. This time you just skipped the middle-man. Instead of a corporate puppet setting up the system for his/her private interest masters, you’ve put the corporation directly in charge. The puppet is gone, the one pulling the strings is now front and center. And you welcome it like the fucking 2nd coming.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. To feel pity or schadenfreude. Either way, for your own sake, wake the fuck up and stop buying the bullshit.
WJM sez:
I’m pro-torture, so that’s in line with why I voted for Trump.
It certainly is in line. Both Trump and torture are things that make sense on television, but don’t really work in real life 🙂
What if he grabbed them by the pussy?
In my own discussions with right-wingers, over Trump and Brexit (how in hell did that ever become a word?), it has become clear that attempting to explain one’s rationale is futile. I don’t get them, and they don’t get me, and never will. When people claim to seek to ‘understand my position’, it’s often clear they are actually seeking a platform to push theirs.
If one needs it explaining what it’s like to not look down one’s nose at Others, to not live in perpetual fear and loathing of every member of a set because some members of that set are wrong ‘uns, one probably won’t understand the answer.
To me here in the UK, Trump is like an average DailyMail/Express reader propelled to power. They rattled those papers over their scrambled eggs every morning, huffing at the latest mythical rule from Europe, swarms of refugees or the latest atrocity from someone not-like-them. Now they are in power by proxy, and waving ‘Go Trump’ pennants as he does what they would while the rest of us look on in horror at the ludicrous, ill-thought-through swipes he’s taking.
He’s Alpha. He Tells It Like It Is. He’s Showing Those Mooslems And Don’t Take Shit From Nobody. So what if he has a dubious approach to women. He’s Alpha. It’s what they do. To the King the spoils and all that.
By the way, evangelicals were divided on Trump https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exvuCgWiIGk
It’s nothing short of hysterical to see women siding with Trump, particularly supposedly religious ladies with allegedly conservative family values and all that.
I thought he was a twat on the Apprentice, too.
True, evangelicals were divided on trump. 16% were con, 80% were pro. Divided 5:1
The Mexican wall thing … if he was a proper thinker, like me, he would have offered full statehood to Mexico and the Central American republics, then filled the Panama Canal with sharks. Millions of illegals removed at a stroke, at the cost of a few sharks.
What is it with Americans and geography?
Of all evangelicals or of those who voted? Because, lest it’s unclear – those who voted for Hillary don’t have any actual evangelical character either. These elections, if any, should have made (all) voters think that perhaps it’s time to drop the idea that when you don’t vote, you are supporting the worse candidate, so therefore thou shalt vote for the lesser of evils. In reality, when you don’t vote, you are supporting none of the candidates. In evangelical terms, not of this world etc. so when there are only evil options, it should be okay to abstain.
According to one writer, a more effective practice is to reason by emotion, rather than with facts.
That’s true only if everybody cares about emotions more than about facts. Probably true that the bulk of people don’t care about facts and/or are sloppy with them, but everybody? And are you supposing that there’s a dichotomy between emotions and facts? Isn’t it rather so that emotions and people’s love of them are among the facts of the world we should reckon with? And does it follow that if most people care little or none about facts, they don’t deserve to know facts and to have a(nother) try at putting one and one together?
Allan Miller said the above, but he, Erik, and others here seem to be doing the exact same thing when it comes to Trump supporters – dismissing and disparaging us with blanket condemnations, negative assumptions, and grotesque characterizations, positioning themselves as some sort of elite intelligentsia looking down their noses on the brutish, ignorant masses.
Erik disparages evangelical women in a fell swoop, condemning their supposed “hypocrisy”, never stopping to think that maybe those women had good, positive reasons for voting for trump that have nothing to do with voting for the lesser of two evils. Have any of you anti-Trumpers stopped to think that maybe other people, just as intelligent and as informed as you, voted for Trump because Trump’s platform resonated with perfectly reasonable concerns they have about the direction of this country? That they perhaps overlooked the stupid shit he often says because if you didn’t overlook the stupid shit people say, none of us would have any friends and there wouldn’t be anyone left to vote for? Are we supposed to wait for the perfect candidate, or just vote for the one that has the best chance of moving the country in the direction we think is right?
I think that most people voted for Hillary not because they are drooling idiots completely fooled by the mainstream media, but because her platform resonated with their view of the country and the direction they wanted it to take; it just so happens I don’t share a desire for the country to go in that direction. I don’t think Hillary or 3rd party candidate supporters or even people who abstained from voting are less intelligent or less informed than I; I just think we have different views on what is best for the country.
It isn’t Trump supporters that are out there beating up Hillary or Bernie supporters; it isn’t Trump supporters who rioted in Berkeley; it isn’t Trump supporters that are calling for the circumvention of a free election or the assassination of a legally elected President, destroying property and mercilessly intimidating anyone who shows any support for the president whatsoever. You didn’t see this behavior from McCain or Romney supporters after Obama’s wins.
This total, sweeping dehumanization and disdain for anyone who voted for Trump is, IMO, feeding the breakdown of society and implicitly authorizing the kind of behaviors we are seeing. You can “say” all you want that you’re against violence and intimidation, but when you broadly dehumanize and dismiss a class, you embolden and encourage the kind of behavior we are seeing.
William J. Murray,
Defensive much?
Sure, I despise Daily Mail Man, to the extent that he exists. Though, conversely, I number such among my friends. Hate their politics, not them.
Strange that a higher standard of behaviour seems to be expected from liberals. Scratch ’em, they’re just as shitty as us! Yay! Go Humanity!
You’re misinformed, Arcatia, They did receive government bailouts from the CMHC – $69 billion worth, and if not for that they would have gone bankrupt. Excerpt:
Rumraket,
Here’s how I see it: however much Trump’s bullying may have gotten him to where he is, it cannot keep him where he is. Trump received 48% of the popular vote. The voter turnout was about 55% (that is, 55% of eligible voters actually cast a ballot). This means that Trump has the support of 26.8% of all eligible voters, and if we round down to include, say, citizens who have been permanently stripped of their right to vote due to having been convicted of a crime, we can say that Trump voters are about 25% of the country.
Here’s the thing: 25% is not a majority, and they know it.
I wanted to make this clear: despite our reputation for cheap, bad food, and cheap, bad beer, and cheap, bad TV, we’re actually less fooled by this fool than he wants you to believe. His power is a carefully crafted illusion, a bit of stagecraft, every bit as much as his reputation as a “successful businessman” was.
The high-point of his regime was inauguration day, which is why the “alternative facts” about crowd size were so important to him. He doesn’t have any on-the-ground supporters in the streets, as Mussolini and Hitler and Lenin did. The “alt-right” is staying at home and whinging on the Internet about how being a white straight male is slightly less easy than it used to be and ooh those brown-skinned people hate us for our freedoms and/or want our jobs.
By contrast, a few thousand people turned out to protest the inauguration (of which maybe 50 to 100 resorted to property destruction). Across the country, hundreds of thousands turned out for the Women’s March — about 59,000 in DC alone (and with zero arrests). That’s just the beginning. Senate offices were deluged with emails, faxes, phone calls, and people showing up in person to urge “NO” votes on Trump’s nominees (esp. DeVos). Although she was narrowly confirmed (with Pence as tie-breaker), the fact that Pence had to break the tie at all shows that the Senators are slightly responsive to the demands of their constituents.
More importantly, there was a break-down in communications between the White House and the Capitol. Congressional aides didn’t coordinate with the White House on these nominees, because no one in the White House knows how politics works. We saw a similar fuck-up with the immigration ban a few weeks ago. One does not issue an executive order without coordinating with the agencies that will be implementing it, and yet that’s exactly what happened here.
That said, his Cabinet appointments — Tillerman in State, Sessions in Justice, DeVos in Education, Mnuchin in Treasury, Pruitt in EPA — could do some real and lasting damage. They will aggressively pursue policies that will increase income inequality, further decimate communities of color, and increase carbon extraction both nationally and internationally. Pence and his allies in the Religious Right could do some real damage to workplace protections for LGBT persons and further restrictions on abortion access.
Despite it all, I still think that the Trump regime will go down in history as the last, pathetic, dying gasp of straight white male privilege. At any rate, I will do everything in my extremely limited power to help construct that narrative.
To say that someone is morally depraved is not to say that someone is less than human. In fact, those are incompatible. I would hope that someone who casually uses the term “dehumanize” would understand what the word actually means. Here’s a start: Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others.
Maybe what people who oppose Trump need and should be looking for is a viable alternative, starting with a coherent set of policies and some principled politicians who could garner support from the centre rather than from extremes. From an outsider’s perspective, the political opposition to Trump still seems to be in headless chicken mode.
Naive and pointless question: why didn’t Clinton and Sanders compromise and run on a joint ticket?
More elitist condescension.
You might put yourself in our shoes … who are we supposed to vote for? How are we supposed to get them into the race and past a corrupt political system and mega-corporate owned crony media? Do you understand the kind of personal ruin an anti-establishment candidate faces, going against that kind of corrupt power? What the media and political operatives will do to anyone challenging the status quo?
You say we “lap it up” … no, we do not. “We’ve” been trying for a long time to find and promote alternatives. A large percent of the population doesn’t even vote because they have given up even trying. Many Democrats tried with Bernie Sanders, but there’s just no way an outsider can get past the Democrat superdelegate system. We say that in 2016.
That leaves running as an independent or a Republican. You seem to dismiss Trump as basically an agent for the same system simply because he used the system to his advantage and is rich. I agree that this is a possibility, that he is a shill for the same corrupt system that played on the anti-establishment sentiment of the population. That’s certainly possible.
But, realistically, what do you think it would take for anyone to take on the system who actually wanted to dethrone the establishment? What would that look like? What would that candidate have to be like, personally, professionally and politically, in order to take that kind of thing on?
They’d have to run as a republican to have any reasonable chance of getting through the primary system and have a reasonable chance of winning the general election.
Check.
To have any good chance of understanding the corrupt government/business crony system and being able to deal with it effectively, they would have to know that system inside and out.
Check.
They would need to know how to manipulate the media and use it to their advantage even while the media is trying to destroy you. This can only come from someone who understands and has lots of experience dealing with the media on a national level.
Check.
They would have to have an immense ego to even begin to think they could take this system on and win.
Check.
They would almost certainly have to be independently wealthy in order for his campaign to survive the media attacks and the utter lack of any corporate/bank/superpac funds that would not be available to someone trying to crash the very system they are part of.
Check.
That person would be attacked from every establishment source – republican, democrat, all mainstream media sources, etc. The establishment would use every resource at its command to stop the guy.
Check. The establishment attack on on Trump was vicious, unrelenting. bipartisan and virtually unanimous throughout the halls of corporate transnationals.
If he was truly an anti-establishment, anti-PC culture transformational candidate, he would dispense with niceties and say stuff that offended the PC culture and rankled the establishment.
Check.
If he was not a shill, the establishment (including the mainstream media) would do everything it could to stop him, undermine him, delegitimize him, delay him.
Check.
If he was who he claimed to be, his immediate actions in power would reflect this.
Check.
If the establishment felt truly threatened by his presidency, they would escalate their attacks on him, his friends, family and supporters, even to the point of threatening intimidation and violence.
Check.
So, I agree you may be right about Trump – he may indeed be a shill for and the establishment may be playing a long con game through him. It’s something I and every other Trump supporter I know considered.
But, at the end of the day, who are you going to vote for? Someone who at least appears to be an actual anti-establishment candidate who promotes the very things you are in favor of, or someone who has a platform you entirely disagree with and a couple of others who have no chance of winning?
There’s a difference between “lapping it up” and doing the best you can with the options and information you have available. Voting for Trump was the best option for me because 1. he actually had a chance of winning; 2. there’s at least a chance he’s not an establishment shill (because he meets some criteria (see above) about what you’d expect to see in and surrounding such a candidate); and 3. his platform is one I agree with.
Could it all be smoke and mirrors, an establishment con? Sure. But please don’t be so condescendingly elitist as if all of us are dumbasses “lapping it up” with cultish glee, as if we see Trump as the 2nd coming. We hope he is who and what he has presented himself as; we hope he comes through on his platform policies; we plan on holding his feet to the fire if he reveals himself to be just another establishment con.
IMO, because Sanders and his anti-establishment views were too dangerous to grant that kind of legitimacy.
Since you’ve read that book, perhaps you can offer an intelligent opinion on why anti-Trumpers demean Trump supporters so virulently?
I am unaware that Trump supporters are getting beat up. This is a regular occurrence?
The didn’t lose ,now did they?
Trump claims up to five million people voted illegally for his opponent while none of his voters were, that sounds like if he had lost he would have called for a circumvention as well as the Republicans in the Congress if their pre election behavior is a indicator
Ever listen to Alex Jones,Trump supporter? Talk radio?
,
How is this intimidation occurring?
No questioning Obama’s legitimacy as President, Tea Party townhalls, Congressman shouting you lie , and fundraising off of it, Obama is a Muslim.
William your memory is very selective.
You don’t seem to be cognizant of the fact that during the 8 years of the Obama adminstration, the nation has actually moved to the right, installing more Republican/conservative state legislatures and governorships, and now installing a 100% republican-controlled house, senate and Presidency.
A chart here shows the decline in Democrat power nationwide the last 8 years. Excerpt:
Well, at least you have your narrative.
Here’s some context that is important. Sanders was registered as an Independent, and had been for many years. He changed his registration to Democrat solely in order to run against Clinton. Meanwhile, the Clintons had spent years (and millions of dollars) cultivating alliances within the Democratic party. That’s precisely why the whole thing felt to so many Americans (including myself) as more of a coronation than an election.
Conceivably, Clinton would have done better if she had gotten a more progressive running-mate — at least someone who could have gone to the so-called “Rust Belt” communities and make them feel listened to and cared about. Clinton can’t do that. Trump can, and did. And that’s why he won. If you look at the numbers carefully, it turns out that Trump’s Electoral College victory depended on razor-thin margins in a few Rust Belt states. Clinton hardly bothered to even campaign there.
Still, the fact is that the Clintons and Obamas have really marginalized economic progressives within the Democratic Party. The dominant ideology of the Democratic Party is neoliberalism. The turn to neoliberalism within the Democrats began with Bill Clinton and others created the Democratic Leadership Council in the late 1980s. Obama and Hillary Clinton continued this.
Obama’s breakthrough, which Hillary Clinton was poised to capitalize upon, was that neoliberalism about political economy was compatible with pluralism and diversity about culture and values. Multicultural neoliberalism is the de facto official deology of the Democratic Party.
At the same time, the dominant voices in opposition to this are fueled both by hostility to neoliberal economic policies — which they see as leading to a decline of skilled manufacturing jobs, etc. — and also a hostility to the decline of the cultural privilege of white straight men. So someone like Trump is able to do very well by running on a platform of ethno-nationalism, often crossing over into sheer xenophobia.
Sanders was able to challenge Clinton from the Left because he goes back to before the turn to neoliberalism within the Democrats. (As an Independent, he wasn’t even pressured to move in that direction.) His roots go back to the American socialism of Eugene Debs and Martin Luther King. It’s a different generation.
And of course corporate-owned mass media outlets didn’t cover Sanders, in part because they didn’t see there was a story there, and in part because they didn’t think he had a real shot against Clinton, and in part because privately owned media companies in a capitalist economy are not going to give publicity to a social democrat. Meanwhile, they reported every crazy thing that Trump said, because it made their ratings better.
Anyway, that’s the perspective of just one American, but I hope it helps fill in some puzzle-pieces for our non-American contributors here.
WJM: You didn’t see this behavior from McCain or Romney supporters after Obama’s wins.
A Twitter User Writes …
No,it’s just proportional and I don’t draw false equivalences from it.
They helped put Trump in office and Trump is unque in the danger he presents to the things they value, especially since there is no Congressional counterbalance. This call for civility is at least eight years too late.
I agree Trump says stupid shit, but surely you didn’t think I meant that no Romney or McCain supporter called Obama illegitimate or sought to undermine his Presidency?
You didn’t see this level of threatening intimidation, destruction of property or implied approval for criminal political activity against a duly-elected President and their administration and their supporters.
Who gave posting privileges to the Concern Troll?
That has yet to be demonstrated.
We all have the same rights
I think if you read the Podesta emails, you will come away with the conclusion that Sanders was in an informal collusion with Clinton to provide an interesting and newsworthy primary contest (free publicity), but was never expected to do as well as he did, and not expected to land as many hurtful punches as he did.
The outcome, the nomination, was predetermined by the superdelegates.
If you look at the Sanders and Trump voters together, you see that that the preponderance on voters have a dim view of government. Not so much in terms of policy, but in terms of integrity.
Integrity was Hillary’s Catch-22. She seemed to think she needed vast amounts of money and vast numbers of paid internet minions in order to win, but this was interpreted by many as evidence of dishonesty.
My opinion, for the two cents it’s worth, is that if Hillary had spent the previous decade exploring policy with the general public, and building an image of personal integrity, she would have walked away with the election. With a fraction of the money.
I love my white male privilege!
When one of them was elected to the Presidency it seems most McCain and Romney voters were ok with it. How about you William, any posts about the birther movement being awful?
So it is not a difference in kind but in the amount?
William, your posts indicate that you know very little about Trump. You should read this:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n04/sidney-blumenthal/a-short-history-of-the-trump-family
Re the split of evangelicals, Clinton is a church-going Methodist. Attended prayer breakfasts regularly as well. Trump is a nothing on the church front–just a user. He’s also a guy who has cheated on several wives, lies regularly, doesn’t abide by contracts he’s entered, bullies subordinates, is self-aggrandizing, etc. Maybe that 1/5 of the evangelical Christians who voted for Clinton actually care about religion and stuff like that.
You know, I remember when the right denounced Jimmy Carter for admitting in a magazine interview that he had “lusted in his heart” for women other than his wife.
He should have just cheated with them, or grabbed them by the pussy. Obviously, THAT would have been fine.
Can we agree that this kind of political intimidation, vitriolic threats and violence is unacceptable regardless of who commits it?
walto,
Your post indicates you haven’t read my posts for comprehension. Even if all of that about Trump was true, he still represented the only chance (wrt presidential candidates) that policies I agree with could be enacted, and that was the case for millions of voters. He was the only possible option, period, regardless of personal flaws or wether or not he’s actually a con.
And, WTF do I care who goes to what church? Did you forget who you are talking to?