• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump Supporters: Where do you draw the line?

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I think this is a very fair point.

What I would say is this: the harm Trump is capable of greatly exceeds the harm he’s actually done to our country. And he’s done a lot of harm. If you can’t see this ... you haven’t been paying attention.

We know this, because Trump has been repeatedly blocked and stymied by the FBI, by the Democrats, his own Party, his own “adults in the room” advisors ... in some cases (like child separation) by his own children. What happens in his next term, now that he’s largely purged his administration of the “adults in the room” and been essentially exonerated for obstruction of justice (Mueller investigation) and for abuse of power (Ukraine)? We are very, very lucky that he is not a war-monger .... but some unforeseen crisis, like COVID-19, was inevitable. And a war in his second term - whether started by us, or not - is still possible. No one can predict what he will do if/when these things happen, but we know we are not well-served entrusting enormous power to a petulant child.

People take far too much comfort in the fact the car hasn’t completely careened off the highway with Trump at the wheel, without appreciating the reason that has happened is because he has repeatedly bumped into guardrails. Those guardrails have been severely damaged in his first term. What happens when they fail? The whole point is to avoid total disaster in the first place, not wait until it happens. Unfortunately in some respects it is already too late; we are seeing our first major failure of Trump with COVID. There will be more.

Remember this is the guy who told stories in 2016 about heroic American servicemen in the early 20th century, who would dip bullets in pigs’ blood before executing Muslim insurgents in the Philippines (no really, he said that - go look it up). He said we need more torture. He said we should target and kill the families of suspected terrorists. Rex Tillerson and other former advisors say they repeatedly had to tell Trump that they could not do what he was asking - it would be illegal - and he would then go into a rage. Trump threatened to bomb cultural sites in Iran - which would be a crime against humanity. In private meetings, he’s asked his advisors why he can’t have more nuclear weapons “like other Presidents had”. He told Woodward that he has a “new super weapon” like no one has seen before. He threatened North Korea, an unstable nuclear power with “fire and fury”. He Tweeted that his Tweets are sufficient notice to Congress and justification for military strikes.

Second, the type of harm Trump is doing is the kind that undermines our democracy going forward. Richard Nixon was going to be impeached on a bipartisan basis - and he still released his tax returns. After he resigned, we still lived in a democracy. LBJ escalated the Vietnam war; the American public debated, protested, voted, and as a result LBJ did not run again. Again, after LBJ, we still lived in a democracy. A democracy is capable of learning, and correcting its errors.

Trump short-circuits this. For example, when he tried to use US military aid to bully an ally into investigating his political rival ... that doesn’t just dent the roof of our democracy. It damages the smoke detectors.

If nothing else, perhaps the lesson we need to learn here is that more Constitutional restrictions should be placed upon the Office of the President, so as to put in better checks and balances. The presidency used to be much more limited, although once the "Imperial Presidency" was established, it elevated the office far higher than it should have been.

I also think that President and Vice-President should be separate elective offices, not on a combined ticket, and I also think the Cabinet posts should be directly elected instead of appointed by the President-Elect. These are things that can be done to help limit the amount of damage a single president can do, and if we don't do that, then we have no room to complain about who gets elected.

As for damage, it depends on what kind of damage and damage to what. In my view, I think the country has been on the wrong track for at least the past 40 years. There has been real, visible harm to this country due to the agenda of Trump's predecessors and their allies - many of whom are Trump's loudest critics today.

I would have preferred an honest and frank dialogue about the policies of this country, our economic situation, our foreign policy, and our national security aspirations. Instead, all we ever really hear about are the horrible things they've done or said, the crooked deals they've been involved in, and various personality defects - on both sides. It even trickles down to ordinary Joes like us discussing politics, where there's this kind of "for us or against us" mentality at work. "If you don't see the world in the exact same way I see it, you must be a communist/fascist/socialist/evil spawn of Satan."

It all seems to be based on emotions and how people feel about a specific, individual politician - and not on the issues of national importance.

I try to look at this methodically. That is, I observe the current situation in America and the world at large, and I think: How did we get to this point? What mistakes were made? Where, exactly, did we go wrong?

Furthermore, the key question is: How do we get ourselves out of this mess? You might say that we should get Trump out of office first, but then what?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
They still protect versus bacteria, and for most of what doctors do that's important - for the patient, not really them, per Se. Mayo clinic can say whatever it wants, but it's just physics not something you can debate about. If the virus is X size and the holes in the mask are 100x wider it's not doing ****. People can think whatever they want, but this is not how filtration works. Your filter has to be smaller than the thing to be removed or it doesn't work. Can it help? Maybe, it'll stop a lunger or two but truth is most people don't have these symptoms. Most are asymptomatic spreaders who are spreading aerosolized virus or via contact with surfaces. Mask does nothing for that, never did, still won't.

But, no reason to argue. Food coloring particles are larger than virus particles... Get two glasses of water, put food coloring in one and leave the other empty. Use a rubber band to strap your mask over the top of it and see what color the water is after you pour it through the mask. If there is any color in the water the mask isn't going to stop a virus. Plain and simple and nearly anyone can do this test. Any filtration media would have to pass a similar test via a lab, so you're basically doing what they do. :D Food coloring 'fail' in this test indicates it's not even going to stop a majority of the bacteria. If it stops about half the color it's pretty decent... Still zero on viruses though, lol.
So you are saying Mayo is wrong --- have you informed them, and asked them to retract? Just give them your credentials, I'm sure they'll comply.

Okay, I admit that was facetious. But see, I'm just an ordinary Joe, trying to figure out what I should do for me, and for everyone around me. That means, since I'm not a scientist, or physician, that I need to look somewhere for information, for help, for advice.

So, where's the best place to look for that advice? Where should I put my confidence? The dark web? Twitter? Religious Forums, and all the credentialed experts here? You?

Well, let me think about that. If I were having symptoms of a heart-attack, would I be more likely to visit Religious Forums and its wise advisors, or the Mayo Clinic. Care to guess?

So I think that in spite of your certainty that you are right, I'm going to place my trust elsewhere.

But thanks for your input.
 

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Well, let me think about that. If I were having symptoms of a heart-attack, would I be more likely to visit Religious Forums and its wise advisors, or the Mayo Clinic. Care to guess?

So I think that in spite of your certainty that you are right, I'm going to place my trust elsewhere.

But thanks for your input.

Good, I wouldn't trust anyone including yourself, lol.

Anyway, my point was physics doesn't care what the Mayo clinic says, lol. You can try it or trust whoever you want, it doesn't hurt me. I'm just trying to help.... I'm sure it helps an immeasurably small bit. I mean it'd catch mucous or something at least... My biggest argument is really the infections are through the roof after masks and it should be the other way if they're doing something as mask use is up. You can't say it's simply the amount of testing going up or something like that... I'm pretty sure most people are complying with mask orders and I've rarely seen anyone in public without one on.
 

Friend of Mara

Active Member
Trump marks a turning point in right wing politics. It's progress, along with a lot of mistakes, granted... But ultimately, we're looking for whatever good we can find out of this, and apply it to the future.

We're long-term thinkers. We test and make plans, as opposed to flying by the seat of our pants like much of the left.
What "long-term" plans does the right have? They are the ones doing a speed run of environmental collapse. Or if you don't believe that I'd still like to see what the right's plans are other than increasing this quarter's numbers by any means necessary.
 
I'm not making excuses for him just bemused by the leftist lack of introspection.

The OP could have just as easily been asked about Biden and would have been more valid. You're mad because I won't entertain your sick fantasy, but it has nothing to do with Trump or me, lol.

I'll answer your question if you tell me why leftists will vote for whoever has a D by their name even if that person is hot garbage. Until then, nope... I'm not even going to pretend this is anything but an attempt to cater to the delusion of grandeur that most Democratic voters have

But, I can simply say... It doesn't matter what Trump says or how people feel about that, it matters what he does. If I feel he's doing his best with things I support him. If not, I won't. As long as he looks like he's trying to fulfill his promises I'll support. It seems that's all he does, so good luck changing my mind on that. :D

With the Dems, it doesn't matter what they say they won't do it. They'll do something else because they're taking money from China and all sorts of other foreigners. They don't work for us, they work for them.
I already answered the same question about Biden in post #45.

It was very easy for me to answer, because even though I support my liberal political agenda, when push comes to shove, I put America First. Country before Party.

It seems this is a challenging question for you to answer. That is revealing.
 
Good, I wouldn't trust anyone including yourself, lol.

Anyway, my point was physics doesn't care what the Mayo clinic says, lol. You can try it or trust whoever you want, it doesn't hurt me. I'm just trying to help.... I'm sure it helps an immeasurably small bit. I mean it'd catch mucous or something at least... My biggest argument is really the infections are through the roof after masks and it should be the other way if they're doing something as mask use is up. You can't say it's simply the amount of testing going up or something like that... I'm pretty sure most people are complying with mask orders and I've rarely seen anyone in public without one on.
Wow. This is your “biggest argument”? Really?

“Physics doesn’t care what the Mayo Clinic says”? I’m no expert in immunology, but, I happen to have a PhD in physics. I specialized in biophysics, in fact. I’m not trying to be boastful here - I certainly hope it doesn’t come across that way - it’s just hard not to notice the irony. I literally have had formal training in biohazard Classes I-IV and spent some time studying the physics of viruses, in a very small way. I’ve published papers on the physics of tiny biological things (nothing even close to Nobel worthy, sadly). Yet I don’t share your apparent certainty that a mask is ineffective in reducing the transmission of a respiratory disease. Even with my unusually relevant knowledge regarding this topic, I wouldn’t trust my own instincts so much that I would just dismiss experts at the Mayo Clinic who spend their lives studying the transmission of viruses.

Somehow this is obvious to you in a way that is not obvious to me. Shouldn’t that make you second guess your own instincts on this, just a little?

Does this mean I’m right, and you’re wrong? Of course not.

But you are a lot more dismissive of experts at the Mayo Clinic, and a lot more confident in your own assumptions and instincts on how a virus can / cannot be transmitted, than I am. At a minimum, maybe you should ... you know ... be a little more curious about what you don’t know, rather than certain about what you think you know?

I would be happy to post information about why scientists think masks are effective - how it works in theory, and what evidence we have.

However, I’m concerned that might be a wasted effort on my part, given the very high confidence and very low curiosity levels I am detecting. Maybe you’ll prove my concerns wrong.
 
Furthermore, the key question is: How do we get ourselves out of this mess? You might say that we should get Trump out of office first, but then what?
Thanks. I completely agree. I only say that getting him out of office is necessary. I do not pretend it is sufficient.

I also agree I wish we could go back to (to the extent we ever did this?) substantive discussions of real policy issues. Getting rid of Donald Trump, America’s least-equipped person to have a substantive discussion on anything, won’t make that happen - but it will make that possible.
 
I don't excuse or defend his response to that Russian Climate Change girl... even if she didn't know what she is talking about.




Wouldn't excuse it... but still would vote for him because the other option isn't an option



That depends if there are grounds for it. I know that the Democrats still haven't accepted the last results too.

I doubt if he wouldn't accept a clear loss.




Did that help?
Yes, that helped. Thanks. That was refreshing.

For the record, the Democrats accepted he won in 2016 and he is the President. They worked with the White House to pass budgets and prison reform. They don’t do that with people who aren’t the President. Trump was the one who kept saying the results of 2016 were fraudulent, long before, and even after, he won. He claimed without evidence that systematic voter fraud against him is the reason he lost the popular vote (!). He created a task force to investigate the matter. It found nothing and was disbanded.

But I digress. :)
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
We all know that there is no line. Anything can be justified either to trigger the Libs, to prevent a Liberal takeover, or to simply spite those belonging to 'undesirable' groups, and everything will be justified.
 
Top