EPTAm I crazy for supporting Donald Trump? - Page 3
| Blogs > Starlightsun |
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43527 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18814 Posts
| ||
|
Cele
Germany4016 Posts
On July 24 2016 03:18 Starlightsun wrote: For those who say yes, I would appreciate if you could elaborate, even briefly. It's interesting for me to hear the opinions of those outside the US especially. he is a Populist and a racist. Basically, he is trying to catch votes of people who are frustrated with their political establishment, plays the racist card. (Wall to Mexico, no muslim immigrants) And on top of that, he has zero constructive points, no real plan and no clear idea. Voting him is throwing your vote away. I'm very confident if he get's elected, he's gonna be seen as one of the worst US presidents by future generations. That's why i said yes. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
So what is my liking based on? I think that I see him as someone willing to take action rather than trying to appease everyone. In my view this was Obamaʻs flaw... despite being highly intelligent and congenial, he struck me as ineffective because he was always being trampled by the legislature and the whims of public opinion. Yes because you are just falling for buzzwords. There is nothing "substansial" about taking action. What matters is implementing the "correct" policies. From my experience (related to everything in life), the more buzzwords someone uses, the less the person can actually offer of real value. | ||
|
Sr18
Netherlands1141 Posts
On July 24 2016 02:51 Starlightsun wrote: I think that I see him as someone willing to take action rather than trying to appease everyone. In my view this was Obamaʻs flaw... despite being highly intelligent and congenial, he struck me as ineffective because he was always being trampled by the legislature and the whims of public opinion. I believe Trump would lead with a much firmer hand, whether for good or ill I honestly canʻt tell. But that gamble seems better than the certainty of continued rule by the two parties, who spend all their time sabotaging each other and trying to score points. I can understand this feeling. Western society is far from perfect. Whether it's wealth inequality, environmental issues, government corruption or shortcomings of the justice system, everyone can name things they want to be changed. And the thing is, the solution often seems easy and straightforward. Yet, somehow our leaders have failed to make the changes you want them to make. They have failed to make our society perfect. And that's frustrating. It seems like it's this frustration that is the basis for your support of Trump. Clinton looks to be a continuation of current politics. A vote for her is a vote for the very thing that's frustrating you. Trump on the other hand, promises radical change. Something fresh. A possibility for real change. You don't know what's going to change or how, but at least there is a possibility that it won't be the same thing you've had enough of. When viewed in this light, I don't think your support of Trump is 'crazy' or illogical. That however doesn't change the fact that I disagree with supporting Trump, which comes from my view on westen society. I'll try to explain my view with a little metaphor. Imagine society as this huge complicated machine. For centuries people have slowly build this thing from the ground up. It's not perfect and needs permanent maintenance to function. Yet it's something special. And or all its shortcomings, it works. Now you are given the choice of how to make a certain improvement. One of your advisors tells you that you should think very carefully about how you make the neccessary adjustments to the machine, because all the parts of the machine are connected to all the other parts. Change one part and something else will be affected too. You are advised to carefully study the workings of the machine and consult all the experts before you make your decision. The process could take years. Your other advisor however tells you that you should ignore this lenghty process and that you should just wing it. Which advise would you follow? | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On July 25 2016 06:28 Sr18 wrote: Imagine society as this huge complicated machine. For centuries people have slowly build this thing from the ground up. It's not perfect and needs permanent maintenance to function. Yet it's something special. And or all its shortcomings, it works. Now you are given the choice of how to make a certain improvement. One of your advisors tells you that you should think very carefully about how you make the neccessary adjustments to the machine, because all the parts of the machine are connected to all the other parts. Change one part and something else will be affected too. You are advised to carefully study the workings of the machine and consult all the experts before you make your decision. The process could take years. Your other advisor however tells you that you should ignore this lenghty process and that you should just wing it. Which advise would you follow? That is a nice metaphor. It makes me look at the situation differently. You're right that my thoughts on this are mostly guided by frustration and impatience. As everyone else is pointing out, this is exactly what Trump is building his support on. It's nice to be able to step back and have some perspective, because the climate and coverage of the whole election here is incredibly polarized. People are treating Trump like he is either Hitler or Jesus, so it is hard to even talk about him to anyone. | ||
|
parkufarku
882 Posts
| ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2715 Posts
On July 24 2016 04:34 Melliflue wrote: I will give some examples of why Trump is so hated, and I am certain that others could provide many more reasons. ... 2. He lies repeatedly. Politifact's profile on him says over half of Trump's statements that they checked were false. They even gave Trump's campaign their Lie of the Year award for 2015. And when Trump is called out on lying, he will either continue to lie or make excuses for lying. Lying is an integral part of the US political landscape. Basically everybody does it. I encourage you to spend 5 minutes listening to any US American political show on TV or radio and you will see that misrepresenting facts, twisting truths and plain lying is more or less the complete content of such shows. You can also take a look at Hillary Clinton's track record of "truthfulness", which is quite spotty as well. She has demonstrably switched her positions on many matters she has claimed to have always supported/rejected such as US military interventions and gay rights. Additionally, she has been far from truthful about everything concerning the "e-mail scandal" around her. None of the above is meant in defense of Trump, but I wonder why you would single him out when every major player on the political scene around him is doing the same and has been doing it for far longer than him. 3. His involvement in some seriously shady businesses. Trump University is a great example of this. The e-mail scandal is not shady enough for you? The vast majority of congressmen and members of the House of Representatives has strong ties with major companies. Seeing how most of them are millionaires (and multi-millionaires) and how their wealth accumulation coincides with their terms as elected officials one has to wonder what kind of shady business goes behind the scenes (and often enough in front)... Yet again I wonder why you single out one person and neglect everybody else. 4. His belittling attitude towards women. From owning Miss USA/Universe to dismissing Megyn Kelly by suggesting she was having her period [source]; he seems to view women as only useful for sex. He also talked about punishing women for getting an abortion [source] (one of the few things he later back-tracked on.) I have no clue what he has said about "Miss USA/Universe" but as far as Megyn Kelly is concerned there is a whole lot of reasons to dismiss her. She is a brain-dead and/or sellout puppet of the most influential propaganda machine in the US. Given the fact that for the average republican voter everything Fox News announces has the same significance as the gospel, it would have been a career ending move from him to phrase his dislike for them in the same words I did, so it was easier for him to go against the pretty face of the network than against the whole brainwashing apparatus in place. In the video you linked about him supporting punishment for abortion you can clearly see that he was forced by the moderator to say it. The video is from before he was the official candidate of the GOP. At that point in time, he may as well have quit the race right then and there if he had said that he is "pro-choice", because there is basically a 0% chance that a "pro-choice" supporter would win the republican nomination in the next 50 or so years. 5. His racism. For example; comments about banning all muslims and the majority of Mexicans in the US being criminals. He knows his audience. Americans and especially republican voters are way more racist than anything you could have possibly ever encountered anywhere in Europe unless you are a member of some neo-Nazi cell. "Racist" and politically incorrect comments are what put him on the political landscape and what elevated him above his opponents. As the good populist and demagogue he is, he realized this and uses it to its full extent. Trump has proven that he will say anything to increase his chances at getting elected. In this, he is just the same as Hillary Clinton, both have shown to flip-flop on issues depending on how the wind blows currently (Clinton of course with a much longer track record of doing so). The only difference is that Clinton has gone the traditional way of saying what currently is widely considered accepted in her electoral base and then throwing a shitload of money in order to make herself heard better than her opponents while Trump has opted for the special strategy of being more outrageous than the other contestants (which was a tall order given the other nutjobs running against him for the republican spot). @the OP You are not crazy for supporting Trump. But you are obviously very naive judging by what you say: "I think that I see him as someone willing to take action..." There is literally nothing to base this claim on. The only thing he has done so far is talk. "...rather than trying to appease everyone." He may be prone to saying outrageous things, but he has very much tried to cater to the situation and his electorate to ensure that he increases his chances to get elected. Take a look at his speeches at different points during his campaign. Besides a few catch phrases that have remained the same, it is like listening to different people. The most notable thing is that the overall tone and content of his speeches has been changing in a very strategical manner depending on the current situation of the race. If anything Trump has proven that he will do anything to get elected and you can very much expect him to do everything he can to get a second term. "I believe Trump would lead with a much firmer hand..." Yet another expectation with 0 evidence in support. The likelihood for this to come true is currently as high as the opposite. Additionally, in the political system of the USA he will need the support of the congress and the house of representatives to achieve anything, which requires much more than a "firm" hand, unless of course you expect him to become Supreme Leader and start a dynasty akin to North Korea's Kims. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43527 Posts
On July 25 2016 11:16 parkufarku wrote: no. a lot of people who are against him all the way are really ignorant and just swallows up what mainstream media says about him (which is mostly negative things). they fail to realize mainstream media is owned by corporations and establishment DNC and the elites who support Clinton Trump's idiocy is self-evident; you can realize his bigotry and ignorance based off what he says, without even needing news corporations to interpret it. | ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families" As someone who despises Hillary, I'm still stunned that anyone remotely literate can think Trump is a legitimate option for president. | ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43527 Posts
On July 25 2016 20:23 SoSexy wrote: No, you are not crazy and do not feel intimidated by this forum - the political spectrum here is basically a one-dimensional leftist, politically correct, neo-liberal one. Being politically correct is not the same as calling out racist, misogynistic, bigoted behavior. | ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
On July 25 2016 20:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Being politically correct is not the same as calling out racist, misogynistic, bigoted behavior. You basically just confirmed my post. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43527 Posts
My political views are not the same as everyone else's on this forum (in the US Politics thread, for example, we see plenty of conservatives and others), and my post was a correction to yours... I strongly dislike exaggerated political correctness too, but merely being politically incorrect and being a full-out bigot are not the same thing. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
There is a strong wave of "down with politicians" sentiment also in europe, leading to popularity of people "outside politics" who will bring "change".it very consistently doesnt work, they either get nothing done, get swept by existing politics, or just plainly steel money and power for their business. | ||
|
Melliflue
United Kingdom1389 Posts
On July 25 2016 13:46 ggrrg wrote: Lying is an integral part of the US political landscape. Basically everybody does it. I encourage you to spend 5 minutes listening to any US American political show on TV or radio and you will see that misrepresenting facts, twisting truths and plain lying is more or less the complete content of such shows. You can also take a look at Hillary Clinton's track record of "truthfulness", which is quite spotty as well. She has demonstrably switched her positions on many matters she has claimed to have always supported/rejected such as US military interventions and gay rights. Additionally, she has been far from truthful about everything concerning the "e-mail scandal" around her. None of the above is meant in defense of Trump, but I wonder why you would single him out when every major player on the political scene around him is doing the same and has been doing it for far longer than him. He has lied much more than other politicians. Politifact give each claim it checks a rank from 'True' to 'Pants on Fire'. Here are the overall number (and percentage) of 'False' and 'Pants on Fire' statements from several major politicians; Donald Trump 111 (55%) Hilary Clinton 30 (16%) Barack Obama 80 (14%) Bernie Sanders 12 (12%) Paul Ryan 8 (13%) Marco Rubio 25 (18%) Ted Cruz 39 (34%) Donald Trump objectively lies much more than other politicians. The e-mail scandal is not shady enough for you? The vast majority of congressmen and members of the House of Representatives has strong ties with major companies. Seeing how most of them are millionaires (and multi-millionaires) and how their wealth accumulation coincides with their terms as elected officials one has to wonder what kind of shady business goes behind the scenes (and often enough in front)... Yet again I wonder why you single out one person and neglect everybody else. Hilary's e-mail scandal makes her seem arrogant, that she believed the rules should be bent for her. Trump University was a scam that took money from normal citizens. Hilary's history with cattle futures is dodgy but there is nothing concrete we can say about that; it just looks very suspicious. Trump University is currently fighting legal cases, including for fraud, because the university massively mislead what it was offering. He doesn't have to say anything about it. He owned the whole thing for 20 years. I think that we can assume he was a supporter of it. If he had any moral objection against it then he could have stopped it. but as far as Megyn Kelly is concerned there is a whole lot of reasons to dismiss her. She is a brain-dead and/or sellout puppet of the most influential propaganda machine in the US. Given the fact that for the average republican voter everything Fox News announces has the same significance as the gospel, it would have been a career ending move from him to phrase his dislike for them in the same words I did, so it was easier for him to go against the pretty face of the network than against the whole brainwashing apparatus in place. If he wanted to dismiss Megyn Kelly then he could have done so without suggesting she was on her period. He had already said that he did not respect her as a journalist earlier in that interview and he could have said she was only trying to embarrass him or said many other things. However, there was no need to say what he did. In the video you linked about him supporting punishment for abortion you can clearly see that he was forced by the moderator to say it. The video is from before he was the official candidate of the GOP. At that point in time, he may as well have quit the race right then and there if he had said that he is "pro-choice", because there is basically a 0% chance that a "pro-choice" supporter would win the republican nomination in the next 50 or so years. He was forced by the moderator to give a 'yes' or 'no' answer to the questions, "Do you believe in punishment for abortion?" and "for the woman?" Nobody forced Trump to say "There has to be some form of punishment" and "yes". The moderator was doing his job by not letting Trump avoid the question, because a lot of people wanted to know what Trump's attitude towards abortion was. On July 24 2016 05:37 Starlightsun wrote: Thanks this is the kind of thing I was looking for. I don't know, does this warrant the label of encouraging serious violence? Are there more examples? You don't have to hunt for them or anything I will take your word on it. Yes. There are plenty of examples. That insinuation about Megyn Kelly was tactless, but on the other hand she was completely unprofessional, and I have little sympathy for journalists (on FOX news no less), who are some of the worst bullies and destroyers of rational discourse that exist. I think it's quite a stretch to say Trump views women as "only useful for sex" or that he hates women. Kelly was quoting Trump back to him. I think many people want to know, and have the right to know, what a (potential) presidential candidate thinks of women. I see nothing wrong with her question. I wish candidates were more often challenged like that. Spend a bit of time with google to find out some of the other things he has said about women or how he has treated them. It would be good for you to do a bit of research on Trump on your own, even if it just about one topic. I would also point you in the direction of his attitude towards journalists as another thing you should know about him. But overall, if you support Donald Trump then you will spend a lot of time defending him. Nobody should have to spend so much effort defending a presidential candidate from accusations of being a misogynistic, supercilious, violent, manipulative, lying, racist, litigious conman. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43527 Posts
 | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
@OP: If you're uninformed please just don't vote. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43527 Posts
On July 26 2016 10:28 EatThePath wrote: Yes Barrin don't be thick. @OP: If you're uninformed please just don't vote. I'd rather have him become informed That's why he asked us! | ||
| ||
