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”?
On one side, some low-level nincompoops can be expected to do it.
On the other, it is led by the nincompoop that is at its head. If you agree that it’s wrong, you should denounce its leading advocate, rather than support him.
Yes, if the main platform items of importance to you are reinstating torture, eliminating consumer and environmental protections, and giving over Wall Street to Goldman-Sachs, he’s def your guy.
walto,
Trump endorsed violence at his rallies. Remember when he said he’d pay the legal bills if a supporter punched a protester? or when he said back in the good ol days they’d take the protesters out on stretchers?
When they get him to resign in a few months, we’ll have pence, who sucks, but at least won’t be a complete incompetent.
Hmm, so you concede everything. Everything. Let’s leave this thread and move on to next one then.
Reasonably, this would certainly not be any sort of justification to defend the indefensible. Does your life depend on voting? Would your day-to-day life be one bit different if Hillary had won? Not really. So let’s agree that you have just conceded everything – there’s a rich insatiably power-hungry establishment clown sitting as the president, roughly the same sort as there’s always been – and move on to the next topic.
William J. Murray,
Of course not. Ironic when Trump hisself is one of the black swans, though!
Fortunately, Trump’s rabble-rousing failed!
What’s the OP looking for? You’ve got your man. With any luck, he’s you in an expensive coat and overlong tie, doing what you’d do if you ruled the world. People are venting their displeasure at that. I don’t go along with the violence and recognise some media bias, but both the man and his policies I find repellent.
The violence is dumb, the bias I suspect counter-productive (if it has an aim beyond the pot-shot). But ultimately it’s a large number of ‘little people’ saying they don’t like your guy, with varying degrees of … uh … vigour.
I wonder if that’s why I have no friends. Hmm…
Wait a minute. You are saying that your aim is to get past “corrupt political system and mega-corporate owned crony media”? How do you think you have achieved this by giving the power to a corrupt mega-corporate media crony? And why is it so important to you to have one of your own in power in the first place? Looks like your position just got a whole lot more indefensible.
To me it seems naive in the extreme to think that Hillary got her financial support from the poor and underprivileged.
William:
Mung:
No, that’s because of the stupid (and dishonest) shit you say.
Not if you actually read my posts for comprehension. My “position” is that I voted for the person that represented the only viable option for instituting the policies I agree with. None of the other candidates had policy positions I remotely agreed with. So, my options are: vote for no one, vote for people whom I completely disagree with policy-wise, or vote for someone running on a platform I entirely agree with?
Given that, please tell me how it makes any kind of logical sense for me to vote for anyone other than Trump?
Hi everyone,
Regardless of what you think about the morality of torture, there’s good evidence that it works:
http://www.freemarketcentral.com/post/3969/sorry-mad-dog-waterboarding-works
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12819/trump-says-waterboarding-works-media-goes-nuts-ben-shapiro
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/my_vote_for_waterboarding.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/guess_what_hillary_waterboarding_works.html
and finally, Scott Adams’ excellent blog article on torture:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156591306416/the-persuasion-filter-looks-at-torture-does-it
To characterize people who say torture works as “anti-science” is beyond ridiculous.
Re evolution & the Big Bang: Trump’s a Presbyterian (not an evangelical) and he’s also pro-gay. It’s therefore highly likely that he believes in evolution and the Big Bang. Do you know any pro-gay creationists? I don’t.
Re global warming: people bring up Trump’s 2008 quote about it being a Chinese hoax all the time, but it’s worth remembering that back then, Anthony Watts was gleefully exposing poorly sited weather stations on his blog, and some pretty well-informed scientists were also talking about the missing hot spot over the tropics as disproving the theory of man-made global warming caused by CO2 emissions. You could make a scientifically respectable case against it, back then. In any case, nine years have elapsed since Trump’s remarks 2008, and my guess is that he is now a lukewarmer rather than a global warming skeptic.
Re supply side economics: I have a B.Ec. degree, and I can tell you it’s a simplistic myth to say that all economists reject it. There’s evidence that it has worked well in Russia and Eastern Europe. Lowering the corporate tax rate does have its advantages. It’s also debatable whether Trump is a supply-sider anyway.
Finally, re violence against Trump supporters, see here:
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8741
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/its_escalating_defiance_and_calls_for_violence_among_democrats.html
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/17/top-10-violent-actions-trump-supporters/
I think William feels a bond with Trump because of their similar attitudes toward evidence, belief and reality.
Reality is disregarded. Evidence is selectively highlighted or ignored without principle or scruple. Beliefs are adopted and discarded as casually as a change of clothes, depending on how they make the wearer feel.
That sounds like you and yours, keiths. You don’t seem to know what evidence is and you sure as hell cannot produce the science that shows blind and mindless processes produced living organisms and its diversity.
Yes, but you also said that he is (possibly) “a shill for the same corrupt system that played on the anti-establishment sentiment of the population”. See, I have been reading with comprehension.
But that’s exactly the point: There’s nothing defensible in his platform and general character as judged by his past and present, and you agree with all that (e.g. you agree he is shill for the corrupt system playing on sentiments of the population), therefore you have nothing to whine about. It all adds up perfectly. Corrupt shills must be rightfully judged as corrupt shills, must they not?
Okay, so you refuse to read my posts with comprehension. Now, that’s not fair, but from a Trump supporter I expect precisely that.
For about the fifth time, I say that you don’t have to vote at all, when the choices are all evil. But I get it: You think this corrupt shill can be the savior and worth voting for. And voting is something you feel you absolutely must do, no matter how dirty the candidates are. Point taken. When you are as dirty as your candidate in that you completely agree with his insane platform, then yes, it makes sense that you vote for him.
I never said that she did. I was pretty clear that she is an ardent defender of neoliberal capitalism. In fact a good number of people ended up supporting Trump because they were repulsed by Clinton’s cozy relations with Wall Street.
But now Trump is staffing Treasury with Mnunchin, who worked at Goldman Sachs for many years, and Goldman Sachs second-in-command Gary Cohn will become director of the National Economics Council.
To those who thought that Trump would sever the cozy relation between Wall Street and DC: you were lied to.
Unless I missed it, you have only repeated your assertion as if it was a given, could you elaborate an example of each so I can judge your argument rationally?
Watch the vitriol,Walto
The Anti-The-New-US-President crowd is getting soundly spanked, so that may be a good strategy.
How about immoral (because by torture you can get also an innocent person to “confess” anything and everything)? Is that beside the point?
Scientifically, all methods to extract confessions, including torture, work only on a subject with low threshold of commitment. When the subject has immutable principles, absolutely nothing works. See some of the famous martyrs and heretics who went to death.
If you want to prove a crime, work on other evidence than confessions. Confessions are worthless anyway if not supported by other evidence.
I think they believe Trump can be controlled
Erik,
The problem with abstaining from voting is that, even if you have a cleaner conscience as a result, you still have to live with the results of those who did bother to vote. We ended up with Trump in part because only 55% of eligible voters even bothered to vote. That’s the lowest voter turnout in twenty years. And while voter discrimination does play some role there, it’s not enough to explain all of it. I think a lot of people didn’t bother voting because they were too disgusted by both options. And sure, both options really were disgusting. But all it took is a few razor-thin margins in three or four states and we have an incompetent delusional loon powered by xenophobic resentment instead of a highly competent and only slightly corrupt administrator.
What was the last dishonest thing I said about you? It seems to have stuck in your craw. Or have you appointed yourself site nanny.
WJM:
My “position” is that I voted for the person that represented the only viable option for instituting the policies I agree with. None of the other candidates had policy positions I remotely agreed with. So, my options are: vote for no one, vote for people whom I completely disagree with policy-wise, or vote for someone running on a platform I entirely agree with?
I guess if you’re okay with torturing people, bombing innocent families, removing regulations on Wall St., alienating allies, and giving Muslim militant groups a solid hand with their recruitment efforts, then who are we to say you’re wrong for liking Drumpf?
That was before Trump was elected, it doesn’t count.
Wait a minute. So living with cleaner conscience is a problem? Or is clean conscience a non-issue? Are we on the same page here?
Hello. The other option was Hillary Clinton. You would have had no problem living with that result?
No, we are definitely not on the same page.
If you depend on Obamacare ,your life may be different soon.
I thought we were talking about white male privilege that accrued only to Trump.
Why not look at the rich white males that supported Obama and Clinton? What’s your plan for getting rid of them?
In your case mung ,that is your charm.
No, I agree that you may be right in you political assessment of Trump. I don’t “concede” that this characterization is actually what Trump is; that will be demonstrated or not depending on what he does in office. So far, I’m happy with what he has done in office. That may change. There may come a time when I realize you and other Anti-Trumpers were right.
Well, I’d agree if that was what actually happened, but I see that you’re more interested in building your own narrative, like KN.
From my perspective, I have a presented a perfectly valid reason why I voted for Trump. He was the only viable option that represented my political positions. You say I didn’t have to vote for him; this is true. I could have not voted at all. As you say, what difference would it make in my life?
But, that’s not exactly true, Erik. One of the major reasons I voted for Trump was his platform of job creation and economic growth and the dialing down of federal regulations on small business – this would directly affect me and all my family. Another plank would be his promise to repeal the individual mandate and end the Obamacare individual penalty – this will have a major positive impact on my fiances and the finances of my entire family.
Re-energizing the petroleum and coal industry will have a huge impact on some members of my family and friends. Have you noticed the boom in the stock market and the number of new and saved jobs and business investments that have been announced since Trump won?
I live where illegal immigration from Mexico directly impacts the economy, and also where drugs and gangs from Mexico create huge problems. Perhaps you don’t see any of that where you live, but it’s a problem here. So yes, building a wall and enforcing current immigration laws will likely have a positive effect on my life and the lives of friends and family, not to mention stimulate the economy and provide lots of jobs nearby.
So there were plenty of reasons for me to choke back my offense for some of the shit Trump says and vote for him anyway, because as a matter of principle I always vote on policy, not whether or not I personally like the candidate.
Agree with me or not, after three weeks I’m very happy with my choice and as yet have zero buyer’s remorse. IMO, he has way, way outperformed. That doesn’t mean I’m not keeping an eye on it nor does it mean I’ll support anything Trump does hook, line or sinker. I’m not happy with a couple of his cabinet picks nor am I happy with his handling of the Haiti situation, but considering what he’s up against right now, I’m willing to reserve some judgement until this plays out a little more because he’s really surprised me several time when I thought he was taking a wrong step.
Erik, WTF? Nowhere did I agree that he was a shill. I said he might be a shill; if he is, then what exactly have I lost by voting for him? Nothing – Hillary is at least as bad as Trump if Trump is a shill.
I voted for Trump on the chance that he might not be a shill because even if I was wrong, so what? I will have lost nothing by voting for him. But, IF Trump is not a shill, then holy crap!! I will have helped elect someone who actually does almost exactly what I see as being in the best interests of the country!
I don’t get why you can’t see this logically. The only possibility of it going my way (and the way of millions of others) was to vote for Trump, and we lose absolutely nothing if we’re wrong about him.
And, what do you mean that there is nothing “defensible” in his platform? I told you, I agree with virtually his entire platform. Is agreeing with a platform not a valid defense of voting for a platform?
“If you depend on Obamacare ,your life may be different soon.”
That’s very possible, but there’s a lot of conflict in the GOP right now w/r/t health care. If they ditch Obamacare, there will be catastrophic consequences, deaths, etc. That’s jammed up enough GOP house members that the repeal is basically on indefinite hold for now.
Okay, so selfish hopes weigh more than all rationality. I feel your pain, because your hopes will be crushed. Trump is a crony, a corrupt shill. In his view, smart businessmen pay no taxes in the first place, so you have been simply stupid. To fail to see his character for what it is and to vote for him, well, you have my sympathy.
But yes, those are valid reasons for voting him. If I were like you, morally insensitive and blind to people’s lust for power, I would have probably voted for him too.
I’m only saying that the decision to live with a clean conscience comes with a price-tag.
I would have had many serious problems with a Clinton presidency, but it would have been (by my lights) far preferable.
We’re in a revanchist backlash right now, mostly from a dying demographic of less educated, more rural, white racist evangelical men.
As the Sufis say, nothing endures. This, too, shall pass.
Really mung, the why can’t we just get along, forget the past argument has persuaded you?
I also live where illegal immigration from Mexico directly impacts the economy, I see it mostly positive. The idea of a wall sounds like a large waste of money for those who pay and a bonanza for those selected few,
Same could be said of Bush, it seems like we lost a lot.
So does the decision to live with a dirty conscience, except that those with a dirty conscience would deny this. Or they’d perhaps rationalise it as somehow worth it.
Here’s what you really said, “The problem with abstaining from voting is that, even if you have a cleaner conscience as a result, you still have to live with the results of those who did bother to vote.”
You called abstaining from voting a problem because you have to live with the results along with those who voted. In reality, even when you vote, you have to live with the results the same way as the entire population of the country, so how is this a problem? Where’s the difference? No difference.
When you vote for the losing candidate, you will end up with at least a brief frustration. When you vote for the winning candidate who crushes your hopes, you will end up with long frustration. When you vote for the winning candidate who will actually do as you hope, you may easily end up morally questionable like Murray, looking down on all the “losers” (who always happen to be roughly half of the population – and Murray’s case is far worse, because he is promoting a person who takes explicit pride in his immorality and lawlessness). So, any way you cut it, there is no objectionable price tag on clean conscience given non-voting.
I’ll see your quote and raise you another one):
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/01/bank-bailout-claim-pure-propaganda
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/opinions/reasoning-with-trump-voters-mallicote/index.html
“You voted for Trump because Hillary Clinton was going to be in Wall Street’s pocket. Trump wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and eliminate the Fiduciary Rule, letting Wall Street return to its pre-2008 ways.
You voted for Trump because you thought the Clinton Foundation was “pay for play.” Trump has refused to wall off his businesses from his administration, and personally profits from payments from foreign governments.
You voted for Trump because of Clinton’s role in Benghazi. Trump ordered the Yemen raid without adequate intel, and tweeted about “FAKE NEWS” while Americans died as a result of his carelessness.
You voted for Trump because Clinton didn’t care about “the little guy.” Trump’s cabinet is full of billionaires, and he’s taking away your health insurance so he can give them a multi-million-dollar tax break.
You voted for Trump because he was going to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. American consumers will pay for the wall via import tariffs.
You voted for Trump because Clinton was going to get us into a war. Trump has provoked our enemies, alienated our allies and given ISIS a decade’s worth of recruiting material.
You voted for Trump because Clinton didn’t have the “stamina” to do the job. Trump hung up on the Australian Prime Minister during a 5 p.m. phone call because “it was at the end of a long day and he was tired and fatigue was setting in.”
You voted for Trump because foreign leaders wouldn’t respect Clinton. Foreign leaders, both friendly and hostile, are openly mocking Trump.
You voted for Trump because Clinton lies and “he tells it like it is.” Trump and his administration lie with a regularity and brazenness that can only be described as shocking.
Let’s be honest about what really happened.
The reality is that you voted for Trump because you got conned. Trump is a grifter and the American people were the mark. Hey, it happens, and there’s no shame in being taken in by a pro. But now that you know the score, quit insisting the conman is on your side.”
The removal of individual mandate will cause the flight of healthy individuals, the GOP can then blame the demise of the democrats .
Richardthughes,
What are the sources of data that support your comments?
That Donald is a grifter?
colewd,
would a history of multiple bankruptcies leaving others holding the bag suffice? Or perhaps the many times he didn’t pay the agreed amount to little guys and said the could either settle or he’d crush them with litigation?
President Donald Trump accused Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain of helping America’s enemies by criticizing an ill-fated U.S. military raid in Yemen.
The Arizona Republican, “should not be talking about the success or failure of a mission to the media,” Trump said in an early morning tweet, “Only emboldens the enemy!”
See more at: http://www.rollcall.com/news/trump-blasts-john-mccain-emboldening-americas-enemies?utm_name=newsletters&utm_source=rollcallheadlines&utm_medium=email#sthash.6Vi8ehc9.dpuf
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2911177
Not endorsing this; just linking because it sounds relevant.
Sounds right, pissing people off trying to get home is never popular
I await a link to any Democrat senators criticizing Obama for this:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/helicopter-shot-25-navy-seals-dead-crash-afghanistan/story?id=14245387