Question for Trump supporters

aleCcowaN said:
You can criticize Trump all you want for any reason, even a valid one, but not in this thread if Trump supporters are to explain how they feel about it.

On the other hand, what I was saying is "play like you are the ambassador of Belgium in the USA. What would you pay attention? To whatever Trump literally says or to what he seems to be willing to do?".
Click to expand...

aleCcowaN said:
I'm most certain Mr Ambassador will only read between the lines. That's the way politics was, is and will be everywhere.

Certain critics of Trump -like some of many writing editorials in The New York Times- have taken care of spelling out his positions, like his isolationism.
Click to expand...
I'm not the Belgian ambassador, far from it. But even doing my best reading between the lines of what he's saying, I see someone who doesn't take anybody's advice and would indeed be a menace to the world if he'd sit in the Oval Office.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
I think you make an unwarranted assumption about the bulk of Trump supporters, who when asked do mention the literal policies quite often, apart from the general 'good feel' of white backlash.

That Trump's rhetoric may or may not refer to real action plans, some other set of actions of similar or compatible nature are reasonable to expect, insofar as there is actual policy being expressed; therefore, today's statements taken literally are valid surrogates for those policies and actions Trump is likely to attempt in the future.

As for safe spaces for proffering opinions without blow-back, I think the idea gravely mistaken. One should be able to offer cogent reasons for any given position; if they exist, some headway in shaping opinion can be made, if they do not, such policies and opinions ought to be properly debunked on a site such as ISF, and dismissed.

Finally, statements and rhetoric alone are quite enough to shape world opinion and affect international affairs. Trump is a candidate for office in a superpower with nukes and the world's largest military, a UN Security Council member, signatory to multiple treaties of its own earlier design, and a member of several alliances. Given that, loose rhetoric "a la Peron" isn't limited in its impact to the quaint tragic-comedy of Argentinian political dysfunction; rather, it affects the entire globe. A candidate for this office quite rightly should be taken to task for actions and words that are fairly indicative of his/her leadership attributes, or the lack thereof.
Click to expand...

Oh! We come from so different worlds! You are campaigning, and what you're saying is right from that point of view. You are also right that the MA doesn't provide protection for the opinions expressed here. Then, an end line is reached.

I don't know of any critical thinking, let alone scepticism, that skips gathering information before starting to think. This thread is intended to foster Trump supporters expressing their motivations. Most of what you said leads to an "a la Perón" repression of such expression. Trump voters here are the evil Yankee imperialists depicted by historian Andrew Lloyd Weber, that is, well known but kept out of the scene to avoid discovering they don't really exist.

I perceive another whiff from your post: you are implying that the importance of the United States asks for special rules. That is really dangerous when democracy is set aside in the name of the world's stability.

I perceive that Trump is a new phenomenon surfing the wave of social media and stitching it with old longings. It like Yeltsin being the last by-product of the VCR revolution in Eastern Europe. Both a losing Trump and a wining Trump are harbingers of an American Putin, so it's very important to know first hand what is in the mind of Trump supporters, besides being ugly undemocratic to silence them with misplaced or untimely criticism.
 
ddt said:
I'm not the Belgian ambassador, far from it. But even doing my best reading between the lines of what he's saying, I see someone who doesn't take anybody's advice and would indeed be a menace to the world if he'd sit in the Oval Office.
Click to expand...

Do you read Le Monde Diplomatique or similar publications?

thaiboxerken said:
I thought not. Trump supporters should be ready to defend their idiotic stances in this forum, even in this thread.
Click to expand...

I meant "staying on topic". But it seems of all rules you chose the one that plays on your favour.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Just to give an example, I think that Trump has the highest probability of any Presidential candidate to say "Screw it; we're getting rid of most of the drug laws." That would be a good thing in my opinion. He probably also has the highest probability of any Presidential candidate to say "Screw it; I'm nuking Mexico." That would be a bad thing in my opinion, but I don't think he'll be able to do that.
Click to expand...
I find that analysis intriguing.

It is the case that the President cannot simply abolish laws that he doesn't like, is it not? So Trump actually wouldn't have the power to say "Screw it; we're getting rid of most of the drug laws."

But it is the case that as Commander in Chief, the President does have the power to launch nuclear weapons whenever he wants, it is not? So he would have the power to say "Screw it; I'm nuking Mexico."

So isn't it the case that he would be much more able to do the latter than the former?
 
PhantomWolf said:
That you seem oblivious to why this is so inappropriate is staggering.

Again, the idea of there being "one of the good ones" implicitly implies that the greater majority of the group being talked about are not "Good Ones."

To believe that a group of people are bad just because of who they are is bigotry.
Click to expand...

Bigotry but not necessarily racism.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
I would like to know what those standards are, what are used as sources, and how those standards are maintained over time. I'd also like to know what makes, say, Canadians and Americans fundamentally different or similar, ignoring the nation-states they are citizens of. Would this goal/ideal you advocate do away with St. Patrick's Day and green beer, Boston accents and the Texas drawl? No more Cajun cooking, and the same music style country-wide and on all stations?

I think you get the point: is homogeneity even possible, in what practical terms, and how is this reconciled with democracy?
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating anything. I despise anti multiculturalism with a passion.
 
aleCcowaN said:
I meant "staying on topic". But it seems of all rules you chose the one that plays on your favour.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely on topic to discuss the relevance and validity of the reasons that Trump supporters present in the thread. You are dismissed.
 
That is my greatest fear about President Trump: he won't be able to deal with the impotence of the job in all areas except for matters of war.
 
Last edited:
thaiboxerken said:
It is absolutely on topic to discuss the relevance and validity of the reasons that Trump supporters present in the thread. You are dismissed.
Click to expand...

So long you are being discussing reasons that Trump supporters didn't present in this thread, that is, generic Trump bickering.

NOTE FOR MODERATORS: In a last attempt to keep this thread within its topic as set in the OP I'm reporting this thread and asking from you to provide any additional guidelines. This thread was intended to foster Trump supporters to freely express why are they backing him. So far most content here went way away from the usual meandering in dealing with this kind of topic and the content not only is criticizing reasons not provided by Trump supporters but is also pointing to attack the very moral character of Trump supporters.

Is there any help you may provide?
 
BobTheCoward said:
This thread was meant as a poll, not a debate.
Click to expand...

Right....I don't believe you. The thread is about the reasons Trump supporters say they support him and their reasons are not impervious to criticism. Why are you insisting the topic is not the topic?
 
Seismosaurus said:
I find that analysis intriguing.

It is the case that the President cannot simply abolish laws that he doesn't like, is it not? So Trump actually wouldn't have the power to say "Screw it; we're getting rid of most of the drug laws."
Click to expand...

First of all, the executive branch has enormous power to decide about enforcement priorities. It could decide that it is more important to stop drug smuggling at the border than it is to stop drug selling in the cities. Second, Congress has delegated the authority to the executive branch to determine which drugs are illegal. Hence the distinction between Schedule I drugs (the most strictly regulated) and Schedule II-V drugs. Third, legalizing currently illegal drugs is actually a sane idea which has considerable support in the US, although not majority support. If the President put his considerable political clout behind it, that considerable support could turn into plurality, or even majority, support.

But it is the case that as Commander in Chief, the President does have the power to launch nuclear weapons whenever he wants, it is not? So he would have the power to say "Screw it; I'm nuking Mexico."
Click to expand...

No, he doesn't. There has to be a good reason, otherwise the chain of command will not allow the order to become operationally viable. It's not like there is a button he can push that directly fires off ballistic missiles. He has the codes, without which launches cannot happen, but there is a crapload of in between stuff that has to happen too. In theory, he could surround himself with like-minded sycophants, who will do his bidding, but I think the probability of that is extremely low.

So isn't it the case that he would be much more able to do the latter than the former?
Click to expand...

Not in my opinion. It is orders of magnitude less likely. Furthermore, even Trump seems to have a level of restraint in the normal range. There is little filter between his brain and his mouth in real-time, but he's not really an out of control crazy person. There is no history of violence that I know of, nor even illegal conduct, except perhaps at the boundaries of subjective areas of the law. In matters of war and peace, he might easily be more restrained and less ruthless than Hillary Clinton, frankly. And he certainly will get more pushback from the media on anything he does that they see as bad.
 
thaiboxerken said:
It is absolutely on topic to discuss the relevance and validity of the reasons that Trump supporters present in the thread. You are dismissed.
Click to expand...

Except that you aren't doing this. In fact, you never do this. Perhaps you should let somebody who is actually willing to discuss policy differences in good faith step up and defend your claim.
 
Brainster said:
And you skip the rest of my question, which is, do you oppose that fence/barrier?
Click to expand...

The question is a bit moot if it either cannot be built or maintained. I'd rather we put that kind of money toward interstellar exploration, but that isn't going to happen either.

Might as well dig a big hole in the ground, throw all the money in, and burn it, for all the good it would do.
 
Upchurch said:
The question is a bit moot if it either cannot be built or maintained. I'd rather we put that kind of money toward interstellar exploration, but that isn't going to happen either.

Might as well dig a big hole in the ground, throw all the money in, and burn it, for all the good it would do.
Click to expand...

Conservatives love to talk about fictional solutions and problems as public policy.
 
PhantomWolf said:
<snip>

A couple of questions if you would consider them.



It seems to me that when this solution has been tried by countries in the past, including Israel most recently, such measures have failed as those that are willing to get passed such a wall can tunnel under them quite effectively. We have seen that the Mexican people and drug smugglers are very good at this, having constructed tunnels kilometers long to smuggle their wares and people. How do you see a wall combating this method of getting around it effectively?
Click to expand...

First of all, Israel's "wall" (it's a combination of wall and fence and various border security technologies) has been extremely successful. It has cut down terrorist infiltration from the West Bank to zero. The Gaza border fence is also effective, which is why the Hamas uses roughly 50% of Gaza's total construction capacity for the building of tunnels.

Second, yes, tunneling is a way to get past a border wall. It is also extraordinarily expensive. To avoid detection from various surveillance technologies, Hamas builds tunnels at least 100 feet underground. It is arduous, dangerous work, and it takes years. When you raise the cost of doing something, you end up getting less of that thing. Think of the border wall has the imposition of a tax on crossing the border illegally. In economic terms, that is exactly what it is. Granted, it's a tax that the government doesn't get to collect, but the effect on the "taxed" activity is the same. That is, you get less of it.

I'm also curious how you would reconcile the above with this passage below, especially the highlighted part....

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Or do you believe that this passage should no longer apply for the US?
Click to expand...

I'd prefer not to base national policy on a few lines of a poem by a 19th century poet. It's a nice sentiment, but in a world of 7.5 billion people, a country of 320 million, with limited resources and its own problems with poverty, as well as racial and cultural conflict, has to ration its benevolence and charity.

We can let in immigrants who make a huge positive contribution, or we can let in immigrants who make a small positive contribution, or we can let in immigrants who are a wash, or we can let in immigrants who contribute negatively. Given that there are effectively an unlimited number of potential immigrants in each category, I choose the first. Even better, by giving preference to the first category, we will probably increase our capacity to let in immigrants from other categories.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Bigotry but not necessarily racism.
Click to expand...

Not all forms of bigotry are racism, but all racism is bigotry.

I deliberately wised the scope to all bigotry. In the example I used earlier, it was sexism, if the comment was made about Bill the gay being one of the good ones, it'd be homophobic.

Bigotry is racism when the bigotry is applied because of the person's race. But I am sure that you knew this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom