What Drives The Trump Haters

[Woberts]

His general lack of moral integrity, the fact that he is at garbage at diplomacy, his xenophobia, and his blatant lying. Also, just because something doesn't disagree with you, doesn't mean that it's "fake news".

 

[Shadow Link]

So, you cannot rebut any of my assertions.

What you have purposed are inadequate assertions.

 

[Sunstone]

I think Comey was onto something when he described Trump as reminiscent of a mafia boss. Comey, of course, did not mean Trump was a mafia boss, just that Trump inspired that kind of association. For anyone to do that is telling, for a president to do that is damning.

 

[Underhill]

Two things are known....
1) Trump hasn't started any new wars.
2) Hillary's presidential record is only stellar because it's imagined.

1) yet
2) sure, but it isn't like she has no record. She has a record as a solid diplomat that comported herself with dignity. That alone puts her head and shoulders ahead of Trump.

 

[Underhill]

I make no predictions about NK's behavior.

Of course not. I mean why would one treaty being thrown out the window impact negotiations on another.

 

[Revoltingest]

1) yet

I've pointed this out too.
A record is what happened.
Not what you imagine will happen.

2) sure, but it isn't like she has no record. She has a record as a solid diplomat that comported herself with dignity. That alone puts her head and shoulders ahead of Trump.

Here's where you & I fundamentally differ.
You look at Trump, & are bothered by his personal traits.
You look at Hillary, & are impressed by her personal traits.
What matters to me about candidates is their likely effect in office.
Hillary has the record of a hawk.
She pushed a hawk's agenda by voting to start a war, voting
to continue to wars, & campaigned with a threat of war.
Trump as an unknown who advocated more emphasis
on what benefits Americastan, had the potential to be
less hawkish.

It's clear that we'll never view those 2 candidates in the same way.
But I understand why you prefer her to him.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course not. I mean why would one treaty being thrown out the window impact negotiations on another.

Are you making a prediction?

 

[Underhill]

I've pointed this out too.
A record is what happened.
Not what you imagine will happen.

Here's where you & I fundamentally differ.
You look at Trump, & are bothered by his personal traits.
You look at Hillary, & are impressed by her personal traits.

So far I agree. One cannot look at the personal traits of the person and not see their behavior as a sign of things to come. So far Trump has acted in exactly the manner his personal traits would insinuate. It is impossible for me to imagine how Hillary could have done worse.

What matters to me about candidates is their likely effect in office.
Hillary has the record of a hawk.
She pushed a hawk's agenda by voting to start a war, voting
to continue to wars, & campaigned with a threat of war.

A singular comment in a debate does not a campaign slogan make. But yes, when asked what she would do if Iran got their hands on a nuke, she beat the war drum (like everyone else on both sides of the aisle).

Trump as an unknown who advocated more emphasis
on what benefits Americastan, had the potential to be
less hawkish.

Sure, if you discount his brash and unthinking approach to the world. If you discount the fact his opinions on Iran are based in fantasy. He threatens constantly, wants to throw out a deal that is working, that took years to negotiate, in favor of a policy that didn't work for the decades prior to the deal. The same policy that led Iran to strike out with terror and to redouble their efforts to get nukes.

But yeah, he has no history of starting wars.

It's clear that we'll never view those 2 candidates in the same way.
But I understand why you prefer her to him.

No doubt. And I have no inkling why you prefer him to her.

 

[Revoltingest]

A singular comment in a debate does not a campaign slogan make.

It's not about her slogans.
Although "It's time for a woman!" didn't help matters.

....I have no inkling why you prefer him to her.

I know.

In this divisive election, it's common for people to see
only merits in their own side, & only evil in the other.
This isn't conducive to understanding. So they won't.

 

[Underhill]

Are you making a prediction?

That North Korea will be less likely to negotiate a treaty with us if we scrap the Iran deal? It's not much of a prediction. Anyone with any sense would say the same.

 

[Revoltingest]

That North Korea will be less likely to negotiate a treaty with us if we scrap the Iran deal? It's not much of a prediction. Anyone with any sense would say the same.

I don't have that much sense.
The 2 situations are too different.
If NK finds peace with SK, the US-Iran relationship looks largely irrelevant.

 

[Stevicus]

No doubt. And I have no inkling why you prefer him to her.

My view is that Trump may have given people an option for a "protest vote" that went further than expected. To me, it wasn't so much a matter of personalities as much as what Hillary represented: The old order, the elite establishment (both Republicans and Democrats) - the same people who have been driving America into the ground these past decades.

Trump ran as an outsider, pledging to "make America great again." Of course, few of his opponents even bothered to ask or wonder why anyone would think that America is not still great today.

Trump also said he was going to "drain the swamp," but again, few people at the elite level bothered to ask why/how anyone would think that there's a "swamp" to begin with.

I've noticed this myself, even for many years before Trump's election. I've noticed the same familiar patterns in political discussions. There are those who notice problems and try to inform others about their observations, but then there are those who try to minimize those problems, keep repeating that "everything's great in America," and reciting the mantra "don't worry, be happy."

I've encountered this attitude for decades, from both liberals and conservatives who have a strong stake in the system and will use every ounce of their passion and intellect to defend it. Of course, they're going to say that "everything's great in America," but only because it's great for them. They don't care about those for whom America is not so great, so when a candidate comes along and says he's going to "make America great again," these eternal optimists can't understand what they're talking about.

It's not that they're incapable of understanding, but they just don't want to listen. They're cavalierly dismissive of other people's opinions and points of view, automatically assuming (and often wrongly) that other people are ignorant or uneducated or bigoted or some other pejorative that they want to use to dismiss any opposition and convince themselves that they're right.

I've tried to discuss politics and philosophy with people, both online and offline. I've entertained and examined different points of view, even the most offbeat and strange (which is why I like RF).

 

[Shad]

That North Korea will be less likely to negotiate a treaty with us if we scrap the Iran deal? It's not much of a prediction. Anyone with any sense would say the same.

NK is a more or less a vassal of China whereas Iran has no such "overlord". That relationship changes the treaty especially if China is on board.

 

[Underhill]

I don't have that much sense.
The 2 situations are too different.
If NK finds peace with SK, the US-Iran relationship looks largely irrelevant.

I have some small hope of that. But primarily because we (hopefully) won't be as involved in that.

 

[Underhill]

My view is that Trump may have given people an option for a "protest vote" that went further than expected. To me, it wasn't so much a matter of personalities as much as what Hillary represented: The old order, the elite establishment (both Republicans and Democrats) - the same people who have been driving America into the ground these past decades.

Trump ran as an outsider, pledging to "make America great again." Of course, few of his opponents even bothered to ask or wonder why anyone would think that America is not still great today.

Trump also said he was going to "drain the swamp," but again, few people at the elite level bothered to ask why/how anyone would think that there's a "swamp" to begin with.

I've noticed this myself, even for many years before Trump's election. I've noticed the same familiar patterns in political discussions. There are those who notice problems and try to inform others about their observations, but then there are those who try to minimize those problems, keep repeating that "everything's great in America," and reciting the mantra "don't worry, be happy."

I've encountered this attitude for decades, from both liberals and conservatives who have a strong stake in the system and will use every ounce of their passion and intellect to defend it. Of course, they're going to say that "everything's great in America," but only because it's great for them. They don't care about those for whom America is not so great, so when a candidate comes along and says he's going to "make America great again," these eternal optimists can't understand what they're talking about.

It's not that they're incapable of understanding, but they just don't want to listen. They're cavalierly dismissive of other people's opinions and points of view, automatically assuming (and often wrongly) that other people are ignorant or uneducated or bigoted or some other pejorative that they want to use to dismiss any opposition and convince themselves that they're right.

I've tried to discuss politics and philosophy with people, both online and offline. I've entertained and examined different points of view, even the most offbeat and strange (which is why I like RF).

Oh I can understand the uneducated voting for Trump. I can understand the ideologues voting for him (those fervently anti abortion or gun control). I disagree with both groups, but I get it. What I cannot understand is a reasonably intelligent, educated person with a reasoned approach to politics voting for this guy. He is anathema to those qualities. He's essentially a narcissistic bully who doesn't operate in the realm of reason but in public persona and propaganda. And it boggles my brain that more people cannot see the problems with that (even though most of them admit that my assessment is accurate).

You cannot separate personality from politics. A narcissist is not going to care about the poor. A person with anger issues and who espouses hate is not going to be anti war (quite the opposite). Any good he does on either front is largely accidental or the result of others.

 

[Underhill]

NK is a more or less a vassal of China whereas Iran has no such "overlord". That relationship changes the treaty especially if China is on board.

Perhaps. But ending the treaty with Iran is not a move towards peace in the middle east. It's a bad idea either way.

And while NK can be influenced by China, they are definitely not controlled by them. We've seen them act in ways China doesn't like too many times for that to be the case.

 

[Shad]

Perhaps. But ending the treaty with Iran is not a move towards peace in the middle east. It's a bad idea either way.

Perhaps. Myself I never thought Iran would stop development regardless of the treaty

And while NK can be influenced by China, they are definitely not controlled by them. We've seen them act in ways China doesn't like too many times for that to be the case.[/QUOTE]

A divided Korea is good for China. Dislikes which do not promote unification are acceptable.

 

[Stevicus]

Oh I can understand the uneducated voting for Trump. I can understand the ideologues voting for him (those fervently anti abortion or gun control). I disagree with both groups, but I get it. What I cannot understand is a reasonably intelligent, educated person with a reasoned approach to politics voting for this guy. He is anathema to those qualities. He's essentially a narcissistic bully who doesn't operate in the realm of reason but in public persona and propaganda. And it boggles my brain that more people cannot see the problems with that (even though most of them admit that my assessment is accurate).

Well, now you know how I felt during most of the Reagan years. But what struck me more was not so much that people would vote for him, but that there was such enthusiastic, almost cult-like praise and worship of the man. His fans were called "Ronnie Robots" for a reason. The main difference back then is that the media and Democratic opposition pretty much wimped out and allowed him to become the "Teflon President." They're not doing that with Trump.

In a way, I'm also somewhat mystified that reasonably intelligent, educated people are somehow unable to see or understand why there's been so much anger generated over the years, particularly against the political establishment, the mainstream media, and the elite in both parties. The criticism that Democrats were out of touch was certainly cogent and accurate. The way that they just foisted Hillary on the voters was practically an insult, and the fact that they can't see that or understand it even now truly speaks volumes.

You cannot separate personality from politics. A narcissist is not going to care about the poor. A person with anger issues and who espouses hate is not going to be anti war (quite the opposite). Any good he does on either front is largely accidental or the result of others.

There's an old saying: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. If Trump is angering a lot of politically powerful people in high places (the same people who have alienated and abandoned large sections of America), then he must be doing something right. The personalities of those who oppose him and attack him are also on display - and that's something that can't be avoided or easily explained away.

Judging by actual results instead of lip service, it's obvious that neither party or its major figures care one iota about the poor.

I never thought that Trump was anti-war, although his position as an America Firster would indicate an opposition to excessive foreign entanglements and interventionism where there is no clear-cut tangible benefit to America.

 

[idav]

Well, now you know how I felt during most of the Reagan years. But what struck me more was not so much that people would vote for him, but that there was such enthusiastic, almost cult-like praise and worship of the man. His fans were called "Ronnie Robots" for a reason. The main difference back then is that the media and Democratic opposition pretty much wimped out and allowed him to become the "Teflon President." They're not doing that with Trump.

In a way, I'm also somewhat mystified that reasonably intelligent, educated people are somehow unable to see or understand why there's been so much anger generated over the years, particularly against the political establishment, the mainstream media, and the elite in both parties. The criticism that Democrats were out of touch was certainly cogent and accurate. The way that they just foisted Hillary on the voters was practically an insult, and the fact that they can't see that or understand it even now truly speaks volumes.



There's an old saying: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. If Trump is angering a lot of politically powerful people in high places (the same people who have alienated and abandoned large sections of America), then he must be doing something right. The personalities of those who oppose him and attack him are also on display - and that's something that can't be avoided or easily explained away.

Judging by actual results instead of lip service, it's obvious that neither party or its major figures care one iota about the poor.

I never thought that Trump was anti-war, although his position as an America Firster would indicate an opposition to excessive foreign entanglements and interventionism where there is no clear-cut tangible benefit to America.

People understand everyone hates politics and the establishment. To say otherwise is just straw. Some would rather go against the system without burning the place down but that’s certainly one way to do it, doesn’t mean that’s doing something right. If the idea is to render democracy useless then it’s not recommended, we need to steer clear of oligarchies not perpetuate it. For whoever Trump angers is nothing compared to making the elites of the establishment very happy.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

The Trump I see today is NOT the man he “said” he was during the election

------Our greatest achievement will be impeaching trump-------

----Donald Trump's greatest achievements----

Trump revokes background checks to buy guns

NEWS FEB 28 2017, 8:39 PM ET
Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses

President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.

The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.

Had the rule fully taken effect, the Obama administration predicted it would have added about 75,000 names to that database.

Trump signs bill revoking Obama-era gun checks for mental illness

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Monday rejected an Obama-era plan to make automobiles more fuel efficient, opening up a long process to weaken current standards and putting California and the federal government on a collision course over vehicle emissions.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/04/02/world/asia/02reuters-usa-epa-autos.html

Trump sons' hunting in focus as US lifts import ban on African elephant trophies

The Trump administration’s decision to loosen restrictions around the import of elephant trophies from Zimbabwe and Zambia has turned attention back to the president’s family’s own connection to the controversial sport.

Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump are prolific big-game hunters and during the 2016 campaign, images re-emerged of the pair on a 2011 hunting trip posing with animals they had killed on safari, including an elephant, a buffalo and a leopard.
xoxo, Jane on Twitter

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump again called for an end to the filibuster and said there will be no deal with Democrats on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, also known as DACA.

"Border Patrol Agents are not allowed to properly do their job at the Border because of ridiculous liberal (Democrat) laws like Catch & Release. Getting more dangerous. 'Caravans' coming. Republicans must go to Nuclear Option to pass tough laws NOW. NO MORE DACA DEAL," Trump tweeted Sunday morning.
Trump tweets: 'NO MORE DACA DEAL' - CNNPolitics

Trump’s lies
With just 10 days before he finishes his first year as president, Trump has made 2,001 false or misleading claims in 355 days, according to our database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement uttered by the president. That’s an average of more than 5.6 claims a day.
Analysis | President Trump has made more than 2,000 false or misleading claims over 355 days


Will you vote for trump again-?
just asking

How does any of that improve our infrastructure, healthcare, education, and standard of living in this country?