5 ms·

Sam, just so you know, many of your sentences could exchange Trump for Hillary and be exactly what Trump supporters I know say. Especially this one: > [Hillary

Sam, just so you know, many of your sentences could exchange Trump for Hillary and be exactly what Trump supporters I know say. Especially this one: > [Hillary] shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency, and I fear for national security if [she] becomes our president. Other sentences would just exchange antonyms and not make it sound any better. You call Trump isolationist, they call Hillary interventionist. I fear that your reasoning for why you endorse Hillary and not Trump doesn't really speak to someone who likes Trump in the first place. Calling Trump racist, for instance, isn't going to flip anyone's voting bit. The only very cogent Hillary endorsement (or rather Not-Trump endorsement) I've read that would actually speak to conservatives is this one: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/28/ssc-endorses-clinton-johnson-or-stein/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/28/ssc-endorses-clinton-jo... Which is fairly long and not the kind of thing I'd suggest sharing with your Grandma or Thiel, but I think you could distill more convincing talking points from it that would appeal to people much more conservative than yourself. Note: My own opinion is too wordy for the small margins here, I'm just relaying sentiments of people I've talked to. I'm from New Hampshire, and people here, especially up north, have had Trump signs from very early on in this campaign, way before anyone in the media seemed to take him seriously.

burkaman 10y ago
I don't think he's trying to convince anyone with this post. I think he's very honestly saying that he doesn't understand why someone would support Trump, and if you don't understand the support then you certainly can't make a persuasive argument.
chasing 10y ago
> Sam, just so you know, many of your sentences could exchange Trump for Hillary and be exactly what Trump supporters I know say. Especially this one: > > [Hillary] shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency, and I fear for national security if [she] becomes our president. Except one is based on a set of statements made by the candidate and his own campaign, the other is mostly built upon the massive pile of conspiracy theories and mountains-made-from-molehills that constitute the argument against Hillary.
- sanjeetsuhag 10y ago
  While I cannot deny the claims and cases of corruption and collusion on the Democratic side, I have to concede that the Trump campaign and the 'alt-right' have taken conspiracy theory culture mainstream.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- MicroBerto 10y ago
  > built upon the massive pile of conspiracy theories and mountains-made-from-molehills that constitute the argument against Hillary. Like the "conspiracy theories" that Hillary's campaign was behind the violence at this year's Trump rallies? Seems like they're no longer 'theories'... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY&feature=youtu.be&t=9m35s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY&feature=youtu.be...)
  - chasing 10y ago
    A Project Veritas Action video? Project Veritas is James O'Keefe's new project, right? The guy who's whole MO is releasing questionable videos to attack liberal organizations? Trustworthy.
    - MicroBerto 10y ago
      How does that change the verbal content inside?
    - MicroBerto 10y ago
      Well now I'm confused! Why are people resigning and getting fired over this if the videos aren't trustworthy?
Mithaldu 10y ago
> I fear that your reasoning for why you endorse Hillary and not Trump doesn't really speak to someone who likes Trump in the first place. It's not supposed to. It's a bunch of feathers to convince hillary fans that he's on their side, and to soften the blow of telling them: You're categorically wrong if you want him fired.
spinlock 10y ago
I understand your argument and I might even agree with it. But, I would like to point out that there is a difference if we consider objective facts. Fact: Trump threatened to jail his political opponent if elected. That's how he has shown a disrespect for our system of government. Now, I realize that Trump supporters really don't get why it's bad to put your rival in jail. But, that objective fact does actually matter to people who care about a functioning government. At the end of the day, I don't think you can converse with Trump supporters. They are like creationists in their utter disregard for reality.
- postcarnival 10y ago
  > Trump threatened to jail his political opponent if elected. actually he said he would appoint a special prosecutor to the case which honestly should have been done a long time ago and based on the context of it is perfectly reasonable.
  - swang 10y ago
    No. he actually said this: Clinton: "it's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country." Trump: "Because you'd be in jail." Maybe, (surprise, surprise) Trump wasn't thinking it through and just wanted to get that quip in on Clinton but the language is clear: If Trump was in charge of the law in the US, Clinton would be in jail. Parse it all you want, but Trump has continued to say that in his stumps and is fine with selling merchandise that says Clinton should be in prison.
    - nv-vn 10y ago
      Or maybe he was implying that she would be in jail after a fair trial because he (and his supporters) believes that she has committed perjury and illegally destroyed government documents, among other crimes. There's really no evidence that this was meant as a threat, especially considering he said she would be _investigated_ by a special prosecutor (rather than just being sent to jail immediately). What I believe was meant here is that if he was leading the country he would not allow her to get out of having a fair trial (which it is claimed she has gotten out of by having control over the government). I mean, I could be completely wrong, but either way saying "the language in clear" greatly simplifies this situation. Not that it really matters to me given his political opinions, but I feel that accusations like this are what led to the whole us vs. them mentality on both sides of this campaign.
josho 10y ago
> Calling Trump racist, for instance, isn't going to flip anyone's voting bit That is what saddens me the most from this election. The fact that someone running for a high profile position can get away with such abhorrent remarks as Trump's made. Maybe the real issue is the 2 party system. Both candidates have signifiant flaws, so the electorate is selecting on the attributes they dislike less.
- ryandrake 10y ago
  "Abhorrent" is relative, and colored by the cultural bubbles in which we live. I know people who genuinely and enthusiastically agree with Trump's various statements about immigrants and minorities and think what he said in that "microphone was on" recording was hilarious instead of sexist. They don't think he "got away with" anything.

burkaman 10y ago

I don't think he's trying to convince anyone with this post. I think he's very honestly saying that he doesn't understand why someone would support Trump, and if you don't understand the support then you certainly can't make a persuasive argument.

chasing 10y ago

> Sam, just so you know, many of your sentences could exchange Trump for Hillary and be exactly what Trump supporters I know say. Especially this one: > > [Hillary] shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency, and I fear for national security if [she] becomes our president. Except one is based on a set of statements made by the candidate and his own campaign, the other is mostly built upon the massive pile of conspiracy theories and mountains-made-from-molehills that constitute the argument against Hillary.

sanjeetsuhag 10y ago
While I cannot deny the claims and cases of corruption and collusion on the Democratic side, I have to concede that the Trump campaign and the 'alt-right' have taken conspiracy theory culture mainstream.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
MicroBerto 10y ago
> built upon the massive pile of conspiracy theories and mountains-made-from-molehills that constitute the argument against Hillary. Like the "conspiracy theories" that Hillary's campaign was behind the violence at this year's Trump rallies? Seems like they're no longer 'theories'... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY&feature=youtu.be&t=9m35s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY&feature=youtu.be...)
- chasing 10y ago
  A Project Veritas Action video? Project Veritas is James O'Keefe's new project, right? The guy who's whole MO is releasing questionable videos to attack liberal organizations? Trustworthy.
  - MicroBerto 10y ago
    How does that change the verbal content inside?
  - MicroBerto 10y ago
    Well now I'm confused! Why are people resigning and getting fired over this if the videos aren't trustworthy?

Mithaldu 10y ago

> I fear that your reasoning for why you endorse Hillary and not Trump doesn't really speak to someone who likes Trump in the first place. It's not supposed to. It's a bunch of feathers to convince hillary fans that he's on their side, and to soften the blow of telling them: You're categorically wrong if you want him fired.

spinlock 10y ago

I understand your argument and I might even agree with it. But, I would like to point out that there is a difference if we consider objective facts. Fact: Trump threatened to jail his political opponent if elected. That's how he has shown a disrespect for our system of government. Now, I realize that Trump supporters really don't get why it's bad to put your rival in jail. But, that objective fact does actually matter to people who care about a functioning government. At the end of the day, I don't think you can converse with Trump supporters. They are like creationists in their utter disregard for reality.

postcarnival 10y ago
> Trump threatened to jail his political opponent if elected. actually he said he would appoint a special prosecutor to the case which honestly should have been done a long time ago and based on the context of it is perfectly reasonable.
- swang 10y ago
  No. he actually said this: Clinton: "it's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country." Trump: "Because you'd be in jail." Maybe, (surprise, surprise) Trump wasn't thinking it through and just wanted to get that quip in on Clinton but the language is clear: If Trump was in charge of the law in the US, Clinton would be in jail. Parse it all you want, but Trump has continued to say that in his stumps and is fine with selling merchandise that says Clinton should be in prison.
  - nv-vn 10y ago
    Or maybe he was implying that she would be in jail after a fair trial because he (and his supporters) believes that she has committed perjury and illegally destroyed government documents, among other crimes. There's really no evidence that this was meant as a threat, especially considering he said she would be _investigated_ by a special prosecutor (rather than just being sent to jail immediately). What I believe was meant here is that if he was leading the country he would not allow her to get out of having a fair trial (which it is claimed she has gotten out of by having control over the government). I mean, I could be completely wrong, but either way saying "the language in clear" greatly simplifies this situation. Not that it really matters to me given his political opinions, but I feel that accusations like this are what led to the whole us vs. them mentality on both sides of this campaign.

josho 10y ago

> Calling Trump racist, for instance, isn't going to flip anyone's voting bit That is what saddens me the most from this election. The fact that someone running for a high profile position can get away with such abhorrent remarks as Trump's made. Maybe the real issue is the 2 party system. Both candidates have signifiant flaws, so the electorate is selecting on the attributes they dislike less.

ryandrake 10y ago
"Abhorrent" is relative, and colored by the cultural bubbles in which we live. I know people who genuinely and enthusiastically agree with Trump's various statements about immigrants and minorities and think what he said in that "microphone was on" recording was hilarious instead of sexist. They don't think he "got away with" anything.