4 ms·

The problem is, I don't buy it. I don't believe it. I listen to how Trump talks, how Trump supporters talk, all the racism, the sexism, the xenophobia, it's jus

by ant6n 10y ago

The problem is, I don't buy it. I don't believe it. I listen to how Trump talks, how Trump supporters talk, all the racism, the sexism, the xenophobia, it's just not right. There's no excuse. It's the beginning of fascism. Btw, I'm German. (I've lived in North America for more than ten years)

xupybd 10y ago
Trumps treatment of women in the past makes my skin crawl, as an individual I think his behavior on that count is despicable. But if I were given the option of Hillary or Trump I'd vote Trump. I might be wrong but I've not heard him say anything that is racist. No doubt there are some that are supporting him because they're racist, that doesn't mean all are. On that note I would love someone to prove me wrong and show me a clear example of Trump actually being racist. I'm a conservative Christian. As a conservative, the left look down on me and assume there is only ignorance fueling my world view. There are issue like abortion, that to me are like the holocaust. I know most don't agree with me on that, and I can understand that they don't see a fetus as a life, I get it. But imagine for a second that you were firmly convinced that a fetus was as much a life as a new born. Things like that will drive you to vote Trump despite hating some of his actions. The left also treats Christians with disdain. You have to get people on side if you want them to vote for you. Not tell them they're idiots. While I don't agree with them some see gun rights as fundamentals to their freedom. You can't just tell these people were going to restrict guns, you have to get them to believe that it's for the best. Not tell them they're idiots. Then call them racist sexist bigots when they don't vote your way. Immigration in the states is not in a good way, having so many people living illegally is not good for anyone. Trump might sound harsh but at least he is willing to tackle the problem (even in a way I'd not go for).
- ant6n 10y ago
  Well, you say abortion is an issue that feels like a Holocaust to you. To me racism and xenophobia are the the things that fuelled the actual Holocaust. I tried to outline some of the racism inherent to Trump further up. To be honest, I don't understand conservative Christians love for republicans. They preach social darwinism, often they preach fear of others. Is it all based on this notion that "The left also treats Christians with disdain"? My view of Christianity (I come from a more Lutheran view...) is one of 'love thy neighbor' and charity towards the poor as the guiding principles. I consider myself a humanist, but understand that my flavor of Western humanism is essentially the non-secular continuation of Christian values -- which are inherently compatible with leftist values that are also very much based on compassion and empathy. This all seems to be incompatible with the hatefulness I see from republicans, especially somebody like Trump. To me, Trump is a selfish nihilist. One of my favorite Presidents is Jimmy Carter, and his strong moral center based on religious beliefs is the main reason.
  - xupybd 10y ago
    This is one of the things I don't understand about modern politics, morally conservative always seem to go towards extreme capitalism and morally progressives tend to go towards socialism. Personally I'm more middle of the road on socialism VS capitalism. But I tend to vote and align with parties on their moral stance. Even though Trump appears to have a crappy personal Moral standard his policies at least align more with the conservative end. I'd rather a hypocrite that legislates conservatively (Even though that's a really crappy thing to have as the best option). But on the Christian view, there are actually themes in the Bible that talk about a "worker deserving his wage", and "if a man doesn't work he doesn't eat". So I don't know if Christianities version of "Love thy neighbor" is what non Christians think it is. The concept of Love in Christianity doesn't always map to what non Christians see as Love. For example discipline is seen as a form of love. Sometimes doing something that is unpleasant for an individual but helps them in the long run can be seen as love. But to be honest I don't think biblical concepts really align with the left or the right. If I were convinced as you are that Trump wanted to introduce racist policies as president then I'd agree there is no way in good conscience to vote for him. I'm not yet convinced of that and as I'm not American did not bother researching enough to be fully convinced. But then I don't know who I'd have voted for. I'm not a fan of Hillary and then there is the Libertarian and Green candidates, neither really align with my moral views either. It would have been nice if there was a strong moral candidate, but I don't know that either were this election.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      This is one of the things I don't understand about modern politics, morally conservative always seem to go towards extreme capitalism and morally progressives tend to go towards socialism. A cynical and maybe excessively nasty answer is that people that just care about lower taxes have pandered to moral conservatives in order to get tax cutting representatives elected. The more nuanced answer is probably that there has been a coalition for 30-40 years along those lines. I think over the next several elections, those alignments are going to shift in a big way. Trump doesn't come from the historic coalition, Sanders almost won as an outsider in the Democratic primary. The parties are not well aligned with the electorate.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The irony to me about immigration violations is that a major factor in reducing them has been...NAFTA. There is even currently a net migration of Mexicans back to Mexico. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/ http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-... I'm not sure I count as part of the left, but as an atheist, I have no trouble understanding a fetus was as much a life as a new born as an honest and principled position. On the other hand, I'm not sure how you come to a political compromise with people that disagree with it (how do they reach out?).
  - noobiemcfoob 10y ago
    > On the other hand, I'm not sure how you come to a political compromise with people that disagree with it (how do they reach out?). I've often found myself with the same question. What's a satisfactory answer for "THIS IS MURDER!?" vs. "Eh, I don't think so, more like a nasty wart...". I understand both, but I just don't see place for a bridge other than telling one side to get over it.
    - kofejnik 10y ago
      http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.ht... You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him."
- artimaeis 10y ago
  > "There are issue like abortion, that to me are like the holocaust. I know most don't agree with me on that, and I can understand that they don't see a fetus as a life, I get it. But imagine for a second that you were firmly convinced that a fetus was as much a life as a new born." Okay, so here I am - lifelong progressive Democrat. And I'll open up to this discussion. So, I'm believing that at the moment of conception a full viable life is formed. And that life has the full rights and protections afforded by the State (both federal and all levels beneath). Let's start with the simple route - the parents are happy to have the child, are financially capable, and medically sound for delivery. In this nothing is different from how it is today. A healthy child is born to a happy family. Our differences seem to come from all the complications in the process. Let's start with an understandable one - the life of the mother is in danger if she delivers the child. This is a horrifying decision. Does the state force the delivery of the child and thus condemn the mother to death? Is not one of the roles of modern medicine to protect people from death? This is, after all, why we now give birth in hospitals. So, before I go further arguing with myself - what's your rationale as a conservative Christian on that scenario? Is it really as simple as "protect the child's life at all costs"? For what it's worth - I don't think anyone's an idiot for being on the conservative side. I think a lot of the issues we struggle with in this day and age (such as abortion) are just far more complicated and intricate than most give credit for.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    "Life of the mother" is very different from "it's my body", though. If I believe that life begins at conception, I can perhaps bend to a "life of the mother" exception. "It's my body"? But it's not just your body - there's another life involved as well - so you can't just do what you want with your body.
    - artimaeis 10y ago
      Okay, so you can bend to "life of the mother" exception. I can follow this a bit further then. How do you handle and account for miscarriages? A sizable number of pregnancies end in miscarriage - especially if we view life as beginning at conception. So in miscarriage the mother has ended the life of the child. What's the framework with which you believe this should be dealt with? What's to be done with people who have biological disorders leading to problems with gestation? After all, if life starts at conception then it's pretty quickly no longer just a woman's body.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  What I find particularly perplexing—especially as an ethnic Christian who does not follow the faith—is that pre-campaign Trump was pro-choice. I've never understood why my Christian friends and co-citizens accept being pandered to on this issue to lock in their votes. Especially when other platforms, to me—especially when I ardently followed the faith—seem inexplicably counter to Christ's commands and teachings. That Trump is demonstrably antithetical to the person of Christ and exhibits none of the fruits of the Spirit leave me utterly dumbfounded at the abject disavowal of their principles and surrendering unto Caesar for the chance to push their religious convictions as legitimate and defensible grounds for coercive public policies (that won't affect them because they embody the principles they already live by). > The left also treats Christians with disdain. You have to get people on side if you want them to vote for you. Not tell them they're idiots. Sadly, the right, and many hyper-political Christians and their various organizations do the same thing here, treating those who disagree with them with disdain. Saying they're going to hell. Calling them idiots, fags, feminazis, and more. They feel justified in viscerally attacking those who are outside their tribe. Both sides only succeed in alienating their fellow citizens and prefer to divide and conquer to push their agendas. Since 1992, few Republicans, and even fewer conservative Christians, have done anything particularly noteworthy in the realm of refusing the politics of divisive disdain to get people on their side. > Immigration in the states is not in a good way, having so many people living illegally is not good for anyone. Trump might sound harsh but at least he is willing to tackle the problem (even in a way I'd not go for). You know what would really help tackle this problem, but will never happen as a systemic and rigorous response? Going after the businesses and employers who utilize illegal labor to profit, and punishing them severely for breaking the law. And then doing it again. And again. If there wasn't a ready market willing to exploit illegal immigrants, there'd arguably be a far more manageable problem. Instead of going after those American business owners and operators who choose this route, we instead focus all the blame and punishment on the immigrants themselves, who are—for myriad reasons—seeking a better life in the states. We give the issue over to the crucible of politicization, enabling it to boil and froth and invoke the anger of those who are economically displaced and otherwise left behind. We let the anger boil over, shoving it back under the rug, back in the closet, hoping it will go away. One side chooses to stoke this into a xenophobic fervor. The other side sits weakly on the sidelines, professing empathy for the plight of immigrants, while showing little understanding toward those who are growing angry. If we are going to remain a nation of laws, then fidelity to law must remain our guiding ideal. People want to come to America. They want to have citizenship, with all its benefits and responsibilities. We should make that easier. Employers want to take advantage of cheap illegal labor. They want to pay under the table, and enable the problem. We should make that a much more painful path to choose. Next time a group of illegal workers are discovered, how about we quietly connect them with immigration officials and get their paperwork started, while making a huge media deal of arresting the people who hired them and hauling them off to jail? We can solve problems without making people afraid. The primary problem with Trump and his most vocal supporters, as far as the opposition is concerned, is that they've packaged these problems and their messages in a demonstrably angry—I dare say hateful-sounding—package. And it is scary to those who feel like they're the target of the anger. They feel the disdain. The hate. They say they hear (hopefully metaphorical and rhetorical) calls for blood. This should not be.
tnmrnis 10y ago
I also followed the elections very closely and I don't buy the "racism", "sexism" and "xenophobia". I looked up a lot of scandals and looked at the speeches, videos and leaks itself. Often times I didn't consider the outrage as justified. Example 1: Trump never called all mexicans racist, what he said was that a lot of the people crossing the border are criminals while other s are decent. Some of the criminals are racist. Example 2: His "approval" of sexual assault, was nothing but locker room talk. Two guys "out alphaing" each other in a not so nice way. As a conservative from Germany that has been accused of racism for showing support for the shut down of the balcan route I find it much easier to sympathize with the falsely accused then with the accuser. That doesn't mean that I agree with Trump, but I would have voted for Trump over Clinton.

by ant6n 10y ago

xupybd 10y ago

Trumps treatment of women in the past makes my skin crawl, as an individual I think his behavior on that count is despicable. But if I were given the option of Hillary or Trump I'd vote Trump. I might be wrong but I've not heard him say anything that is racist. No doubt there are some that are supporting him because they're racist, that doesn't mean all are. On that note I would love someone to prove me wrong and show me a clear example of Trump actually being racist. I'm a conservative Christian. As a conservative, the left look down on me and assume there is only ignorance fueling my world view. There are issue like abortion, that to me are like the holocaust. I know most don't agree with me on that, and I can understand that they don't see a fetus as a life, I get it. But imagine for a second that you were firmly convinced that a fetus was as much a life as a new born. Things like that will drive you to vote Trump despite hating some of his actions. The left also treats Christians with disdain. You have to get people on side if you want them to vote for you. Not tell them they're idiots. While I don't agree with them some see gun rights as fundamentals to their freedom. You can't just tell these people were going to restrict guns, you have to get them to believe that it's for the best. Not tell them they're idiots. Then call them racist sexist bigots when they don't vote your way. Immigration in the states is not in a good way, having so many people living illegally is not good for anyone. Trump might sound harsh but at least he is willing to tackle the problem (even in a way I'd not go for).

ant6n 10y ago
Well, you say abortion is an issue that feels like a Holocaust to you. To me racism and xenophobia are the the things that fuelled the actual Holocaust. I tried to outline some of the racism inherent to Trump further up. To be honest, I don't understand conservative Christians love for republicans. They preach social darwinism, often they preach fear of others. Is it all based on this notion that "The left also treats Christians with disdain"? My view of Christianity (I come from a more Lutheran view...) is one of 'love thy neighbor' and charity towards the poor as the guiding principles. I consider myself a humanist, but understand that my flavor of Western humanism is essentially the non-secular continuation of Christian values -- which are inherently compatible with leftist values that are also very much based on compassion and empathy. This all seems to be incompatible with the hatefulness I see from republicans, especially somebody like Trump. To me, Trump is a selfish nihilist. One of my favorite Presidents is Jimmy Carter, and his strong moral center based on religious beliefs is the main reason.
- xupybd 10y ago
  This is one of the things I don't understand about modern politics, morally conservative always seem to go towards extreme capitalism and morally progressives tend to go towards socialism. Personally I'm more middle of the road on socialism VS capitalism. But I tend to vote and align with parties on their moral stance. Even though Trump appears to have a crappy personal Moral standard his policies at least align more with the conservative end. I'd rather a hypocrite that legislates conservatively (Even though that's a really crappy thing to have as the best option). But on the Christian view, there are actually themes in the Bible that talk about a "worker deserving his wage", and "if a man doesn't work he doesn't eat". So I don't know if Christianities version of "Love thy neighbor" is what non Christians think it is. The concept of Love in Christianity doesn't always map to what non Christians see as Love. For example discipline is seen as a form of love. Sometimes doing something that is unpleasant for an individual but helps them in the long run can be seen as love. But to be honest I don't think biblical concepts really align with the left or the right. If I were convinced as you are that Trump wanted to introduce racist policies as president then I'd agree there is no way in good conscience to vote for him. I'm not yet convinced of that and as I'm not American did not bother researching enough to be fully convinced. But then I don't know who I'd have voted for. I'm not a fan of Hillary and then there is the Libertarian and Green candidates, neither really align with my moral views either. It would have been nice if there was a strong moral candidate, but I don't know that either were this election.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    This is one of the things I don't understand about modern politics, morally conservative always seem to go towards extreme capitalism and morally progressives tend to go towards socialism. A cynical and maybe excessively nasty answer is that people that just care about lower taxes have pandered to moral conservatives in order to get tax cutting representatives elected. The more nuanced answer is probably that there has been a coalition for 30-40 years along those lines. I think over the next several elections, those alignments are going to shift in a big way. Trump doesn't come from the historic coalition, Sanders almost won as an outsider in the Democratic primary. The parties are not well aligned with the electorate.
maxerickson 10y ago
The irony to me about immigration violations is that a major factor in reducing them has been...NAFTA. There is even currently a net migration of Mexicans back to Mexico. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/ http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-... I'm not sure I count as part of the left, but as an atheist, I have no trouble understanding a fetus was as much a life as a new born as an honest and principled position. On the other hand, I'm not sure how you come to a political compromise with people that disagree with it (how do they reach out?).
- noobiemcfoob 10y ago
  > On the other hand, I'm not sure how you come to a political compromise with people that disagree with it (how do they reach out?). I've often found myself with the same question. What's a satisfactory answer for "THIS IS MURDER!?" vs. "Eh, I don't think so, more like a nasty wart...". I understand both, but I just don't see place for a bridge other than telling one side to get over it.
  - kofejnik 10y ago
    http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.ht... You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him."
artimaeis 10y ago
> "There are issue like abortion, that to me are like the holocaust. I know most don't agree with me on that, and I can understand that they don't see a fetus as a life, I get it. But imagine for a second that you were firmly convinced that a fetus was as much a life as a new born." Okay, so here I am - lifelong progressive Democrat. And I'll open up to this discussion. So, I'm believing that at the moment of conception a full viable life is formed. And that life has the full rights and protections afforded by the State (both federal and all levels beneath). Let's start with the simple route - the parents are happy to have the child, are financially capable, and medically sound for delivery. In this nothing is different from how it is today. A healthy child is born to a happy family. Our differences seem to come from all the complications in the process. Let's start with an understandable one - the life of the mother is in danger if she delivers the child. This is a horrifying decision. Does the state force the delivery of the child and thus condemn the mother to death? Is not one of the roles of modern medicine to protect people from death? This is, after all, why we now give birth in hospitals. So, before I go further arguing with myself - what's your rationale as a conservative Christian on that scenario? Is it really as simple as "protect the child's life at all costs"? For what it's worth - I don't think anyone's an idiot for being on the conservative side. I think a lot of the issues we struggle with in this day and age (such as abortion) are just far more complicated and intricate than most give credit for.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  "Life of the mother" is very different from "it's my body", though. If I believe that life begins at conception, I can perhaps bend to a "life of the mother" exception. "It's my body"? But it's not just your body - there's another life involved as well - so you can't just do what you want with your body.
  - artimaeis 10y ago
    Okay, so you can bend to "life of the mother" exception. I can follow this a bit further then. How do you handle and account for miscarriages? A sizable number of pregnancies end in miscarriage - especially if we view life as beginning at conception. So in miscarriage the mother has ended the life of the child. What's the framework with which you believe this should be dealt with? What's to be done with people who have biological disorders leading to problems with gestation? After all, if life starts at conception then it's pretty quickly no longer just a woman's body.
bobwaycott 10y ago
What I find particularly perplexing—especially as an ethnic Christian who does not follow the faith—is that pre-campaign Trump was pro-choice. I've never understood why my Christian friends and co-citizens accept being pandered to on this issue to lock in their votes. Especially when other platforms, to me—especially when I ardently followed the faith—seem inexplicably counter to Christ's commands and teachings. That Trump is demonstrably antithetical to the person of Christ and exhibits none of the fruits of the Spirit leave me utterly dumbfounded at the abject disavowal of their principles and surrendering unto Caesar for the chance to push their religious convictions as legitimate and defensible grounds for coercive public policies (that won't affect them because they embody the principles they already live by). > The left also treats Christians with disdain. You have to get people on side if you want them to vote for you. Not tell them they're idiots. Sadly, the right, and many hyper-political Christians and their various organizations do the same thing here, treating those who disagree with them with disdain. Saying they're going to hell. Calling them idiots, fags, feminazis, and more. They feel justified in viscerally attacking those who are outside their tribe. Both sides only succeed in alienating their fellow citizens and prefer to divide and conquer to push their agendas. Since 1992, few Republicans, and even fewer conservative Christians, have done anything particularly noteworthy in the realm of refusing the politics of divisive disdain to get people on their side. > Immigration in the states is not in a good way, having so many people living illegally is not good for anyone. Trump might sound harsh but at least he is willing to tackle the problem (even in a way I'd not go for). You know what would really help tackle this problem, but will never happen as a systemic and rigorous response? Going after the businesses and employers who utilize illegal labor to profit, and punishing them severely for breaking the law. And then doing it again. And again. If there wasn't a ready market willing to exploit illegal immigrants, there'd arguably be a far more manageable problem. Instead of going after those American business owners and operators who choose this route, we instead focus all the blame and punishment on the immigrants themselves, who are—for myriad reasons—seeking a better life in the states. We give the issue over to the crucible of politicization, enabling it to boil and froth and invoke the anger of those who are economically displaced and otherwise left behind. We let the anger boil over, shoving it back under the rug, back in the closet, hoping it will go away. One side chooses to stoke this into a xenophobic fervor. The other side sits weakly on the sidelines, professing empathy for the plight of immigrants, while showing little understanding toward those who are growing angry. If we are going to remain a nation of laws, then fidelity to law must remain our guiding ideal. People want to come to America. They want to have citizenship, with all its benefits and responsibilities. We should make that easier. Employers want to take advantage of cheap illegal labor. They want to pay under the table, and enable the problem. We should make that a much more painful path to choose. Next time a group of illegal workers are discovered, how about we quietly connect them with immigration officials and get their paperwork started, while making a huge media deal of arresting the people who hired them and hauling them off to jail? We can solve problems without making people afraid. The primary problem with Trump and his most vocal supporters, as far as the opposition is concerned, is that they've packaged these problems and their messages in a demonstrably angry—I dare say hateful-sounding—package. And it is scary to those who feel like they're the target of the anger. They feel the disdain. The hate. They say they hear (hopefully metaphorical and rhetorical) calls for blood. This should not be.

tnmrnis 10y ago

I also followed the elections very closely and I don't buy the "racism", "sexism" and "xenophobia". I looked up a lot of scandals and looked at the speeches, videos and leaks itself. Often times I didn't consider the outrage as justified. Example 1: Trump never called all mexicans racist, what he said was that a lot of the people crossing the border are criminals while other s are decent. Some of the criminals are racist. Example 2: His "approval" of sexual assault, was nothing but locker room talk. Two guys "out alphaing" each other in a not so nice way. As a conservative from Germany that has been accused of racism for showing support for the shut down of the balcan route I find it much easier to sympathize with the falsely accused then with the accuser. That doesn't mean that I agree with Trump, but I would have voted for Trump over Clinton.