4 ms·

Thanks for your response, I'm not the OP but I'm similarly trying to understand the reasons for Trump. My personal belief ( and talking with some of my own cir

by dtien 10y ago

Thanks for your response, I'm not the OP but I'm similarly trying to understand the reasons for Trump. My personal belief ( and talking with some of my own circle of friends that supported him ) leads me to believe it's a few thing: 1) the tough talking, america first attitude. I think this attracted a number of people simply due to the 'feeling' it gave them. 2) the desire for change. anti-establishment, anti-washington, anti-'what was before'. this was seen in Bernie's rise, and Brexit. so it almost didn't matter what Trump did or say at that point, he was the messenger of change and people were hungry for it. 3) blue collar workers & economy. If you feel like you've been left behind, and the govt isn't helping, well Trump's message definitely resonated better than HC. So those are a bit of what I'm sensing at this early stage of my understanding. I'm sure more will reveal itself throughout the coming days, months, years. However, to your specific points as to why you supported Trump: 1) Trump is easier to predict? I find this truly hard to believe. He is almost entirely unpredictable at this point. He ran on the Republican ticket, but he's hardly your standard Republican. He says he's not free trade, yet wants to do things to help big business, yet wants to impose huge tariffs and taxes on businesses that outsource and offshore to save money. IMO, these are somewhat contradictory. I honestly feel like Trump just echo'ed the anger of a certain group in the country, regardless of what he personally believes, or thinks he can implement. So on the case of predictable, I disagree strongly. 2) Clinton has been hawkish in the past, and generally leans towards US intervention, I'll give you that. However, there are also examples of her using actual diplomacy to achieve results ( Iran deal, like it or not ). Trump has said some really outlandish things as it comes to foreign policy. Encouraging the proliferation of nuclear weapons, abandoning our allies, letting certain parts of the world fend for themselves. I personally think there's a fine balance between being imperialistic and trying to keep the world peace. To say it's China's problem to deal with North Korea, so South Korea/Japan/Taiwan can go fend for themselves is a very narrow view of the world. I think this type of inward behavior actually leads to bigger/larger potential wars down the road. 3. Illegal immigration, OK clearly he built his platform on this. But this is again an issue where nothing with him is clear. He never presented a clear proposal no what he intends to do on immigration besides being tough and building a wall. And to say HC wants sweeping amnesty is inflaming and misleading the debate rather than moving it forward. 4. This is just strange to use this as a reason for Trump. I mean he said a couple things on LGBT, but if you follow this through his SCOTUS noms will play a huge role on the rights and privileges of that demographic going forward. I certainly am not trying to bash your entire premise for Trump, like I said in the beginning I am trying and reading to understand his rise, and some of it is becoming apparent. And I do hope he leads from the center and backs away from his more extreme views. And I do hope he succeeds as a president. But I am honestly confused by some of your points, as much as they might match with his campaign rhetoric, they do seem to crumble upon examination.

jimmywanger 10y ago
> He ran on the Republican ticket, but he's hardly your standard Republican. He says he's not free trade, yet wants to do things to help big business, yet wants to impose huge tariffs and taxes on businesses that outsource and offshore to save money. Well, he didn't get much out of his Republican alignment. The party rejected him. I don't think he's pro big business per se, as more protectionist. Viewed in that light, it makes perfect sense. American companies making products consumed in America should employ Americans. He's remarkably consistent when it comes to that. > Trump has said some really outlandish things as it comes to foreign policy. Encouraging the proliferation of nuclear weapons, abandoning our allies, letting certain parts of the world fend for themselves. Trump is a negotiator. He always comes to the table with outlandish proposals and expects to be talked down. I think that's one thing people don't seem to fully realize, how many caveats his statements have. China/Russia/Taiwan won't be offended at his statements, at least not enough to start a shooting war. They'll realize it as what it is, a negotiating gambit to try to stake out a stronger position at the table, and they know how to play the game. > But this is again an issue where nothing with him is clear. He never presented a clear proposal no what he intends to do on immigration besides being tough and building a wall. This is true. And also a source of misunderstanding. He won't take office until January. Why would you nail down policy proposals now that you might have thrown back in your face later if the situation changes? It'd be like saying in your job interview what you'd be doing at your job that you start 3 months for now. You'd probably say "These are the main goals I want to accomplish, I'll figure out the rest of it once I get the lay of the land". > but if you follow this through his SCOTUS noms will play a huge role on the rights and privileges of that demographic going forward. Nowhere in the Constitution are LGBT rights enshrined. The judicial branch interprets the law, the legislative branch passes the laws, and the executive branch enforces the laws. Trump simply said that he supports LGBT people to the fullest extent of the law (or words to that effect). I prefer that over Clinton, who gets lots of money from regimes that prefer a harsh line against practicing homosexuality.
- md_ 10y ago
  Thanks to both of you. I really do appreciate the thoughtful replies. I've been very disturbed by how polarized US politics are, so being able to talk things through like rational human beings makes me feel a bit better. :) At a high level, I think the difference I see between jimmywanger's arguments and my own view (and probably dtien's) is, perhaps unfortunately, the starting assumptions about Trump as a person. Jimmy, you're arguing that Trump "is a negotiator" who "comes with outlandish proposals and expects to be talked down." Correct me if I'm mischaracterizing, but it seems like you, in general, assume the crazier things Trump has said aren't meant seriously, and that the man is for the most part a competent and rational actor.[4] I've heard this other places, and often the conversation turns back to Trump's business career. Supporters seem to believe that he's not especially serious about the more extreme proposals he's made (a wall, a Muslim ban, pulling out of NATO); opponents believe he is. Supporters suggest that Trump's business career shows he is a serious, rational person; opponents believe his business career is mostly a sham. (This latter argument often involves doubts about his net worth[1], questions about his performance against the market[2], etc.) I do think, Jimmy, that you're extending the benefit of the doubt to Trump in a way you don't to Clinton. Trump's public statements on LGBT rights are mixed-to-negative[3], whereas Clinton's are fairly clear. Yet because the Clinton Foundation takes Saudi contributions you assume Clinton is opposed to LGBT rights, and you assume otherwise about Trump? To me, this is perhaps the heart of the matter, in the sense that Trump supporters seem, often, to (thankfully) not support some of the things Trump says at face value--but instead, they give him the benefit of the doubt that opponents do not. I'm a bit too busy (and you can see I already wrote a fucking novel here) to go point-by-point, though I appreciate your detail. It sheds some light. There are a couple of specific issues I have questions on, I think: 1. Foreign policy: I think the aspect that worries me the most here is Trump's apparent "my way or the highway" view. Proponents view this as a negotiating tactic, but there are cases where this is genuinely concerning. Two stand out to me: the Paris environmental deal, and the Iran nuclear deal. In both cases, do you think that renegotiating these deals will lead to a better outcome? Congressional Republicans have been arguing for tearing up the Iran nuclear deal, which seems highly likely to make the world less safe. 2. Immigration: Trump is, presumably, in favor of greater restrictions on legal immigration and greater deportations[5]. Many Americans are, and so this may (for me) merely be a point of fundamental disagreement. But to be clear, do you merely support deporting "criminal" immigrants (i.e. felons), or do you believe it's necessary to deport as many undocumented residents as possible? Finally, regarding the "Satan 2", to add some perspective: https://www.inverse.com/article/15826-why-you-shouldn-t-be-worried-about-russia-s-satan-2-missile-that-can-destroy-texas https://www.inverse.com/article/15826-why-you-shouldn-t-be-w.... There's a bit of posturing here, but to be clear, the nuclear balance between Russia and the US should not be viewed as changed. Thanks again for your thoughtful replies. It makes me feel a lot better to talk to an actual human with whom I have some disagreements. (Happy to continue by email, by the way, but I don't want to post my email on HN, so you'll have to share one of yours. ;) ) 1: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/05/donald-trump-net-worth http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/05/donald-trump-net-wort... 2: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-09-03/should-donald-trump-have-indexed- https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-09-03/should-do... 3: http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-nationwide-marriage-equality http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-... 4: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/many-trump-supporters-dont-believe-his-wildest-promises--and-they-dont-care/2016/06/06/05005210-28c4-11e6-b989-4e5479715b54_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/many-trump-supporter... 5: http://www.vox.com/2016/11/9/13572030/donald-trump-immigration http://www.vox.com/2016/11/9/13572030/donald-trump-immigrati...

by dtien 10y ago

jimmywanger 10y ago

> He ran on the Republican ticket, but he's hardly your standard Republican. He says he's not free trade, yet wants to do things to help big business, yet wants to impose huge tariffs and taxes on businesses that outsource and offshore to save money. Well, he didn't get much out of his Republican alignment. The party rejected him. I don't think he's pro big business per se, as more protectionist. Viewed in that light, it makes perfect sense. American companies making products consumed in America should employ Americans. He's remarkably consistent when it comes to that. > Trump has said some really outlandish things as it comes to foreign policy. Encouraging the proliferation of nuclear weapons, abandoning our allies, letting certain parts of the world fend for themselves. Trump is a negotiator. He always comes to the table with outlandish proposals and expects to be talked down. I think that's one thing people don't seem to fully realize, how many caveats his statements have. China/Russia/Taiwan won't be offended at his statements, at least not enough to start a shooting war. They'll realize it as what it is, a negotiating gambit to try to stake out a stronger position at the table, and they know how to play the game. > But this is again an issue where nothing with him is clear. He never presented a clear proposal no what he intends to do on immigration besides being tough and building a wall. This is true. And also a source of misunderstanding. He won't take office until January. Why would you nail down policy proposals now that you might have thrown back in your face later if the situation changes? It'd be like saying in your job interview what you'd be doing at your job that you start 3 months for now. You'd probably say "These are the main goals I want to accomplish, I'll figure out the rest of it once I get the lay of the land". > but if you follow this through his SCOTUS noms will play a huge role on the rights and privileges of that demographic going forward. Nowhere in the Constitution are LGBT rights enshrined. The judicial branch interprets the law, the legislative branch passes the laws, and the executive branch enforces the laws. Trump simply said that he supports LGBT people to the fullest extent of the law (or words to that effect). I prefer that over Clinton, who gets lots of money from regimes that prefer a harsh line against practicing homosexuality.

md_ 10y ago
Thanks to both of you. I really do appreciate the thoughtful replies. I've been very disturbed by how polarized US politics are, so being able to talk things through like rational human beings makes me feel a bit better. :) At a high level, I think the difference I see between jimmywanger's arguments and my own view (and probably dtien's) is, perhaps unfortunately, the starting assumptions about Trump as a person. Jimmy, you're arguing that Trump "is a negotiator" who "comes with outlandish proposals and expects to be talked down." Correct me if I'm mischaracterizing, but it seems like you, in general, assume the crazier things Trump has said aren't meant seriously, and that the man is for the most part a competent and rational actor.[4] I've heard this other places, and often the conversation turns back to Trump's business career. Supporters seem to believe that he's not especially serious about the more extreme proposals he's made (a wall, a Muslim ban, pulling out of NATO); opponents believe he is. Supporters suggest that Trump's business career shows he is a serious, rational person; opponents believe his business career is mostly a sham. (This latter argument often involves doubts about his net worth[1], questions about his performance against the market[2], etc.) I do think, Jimmy, that you're extending the benefit of the doubt to Trump in a way you don't to Clinton. Trump's public statements on LGBT rights are mixed-to-negative[3], whereas Clinton's are fairly clear. Yet because the Clinton Foundation takes Saudi contributions you assume Clinton is opposed to LGBT rights, and you assume otherwise about Trump? To me, this is perhaps the heart of the matter, in the sense that Trump supporters seem, often, to (thankfully) not support some of the things Trump says at face value--but instead, they give him the benefit of the doubt that opponents do not. I'm a bit too busy (and you can see I already wrote a fucking novel here) to go point-by-point, though I appreciate your detail. It sheds some light. There are a couple of specific issues I have questions on, I think: 1. Foreign policy: I think the aspect that worries me the most here is Trump's apparent "my way or the highway" view. Proponents view this as a negotiating tactic, but there are cases where this is genuinely concerning. Two stand out to me: the Paris environmental deal, and the Iran nuclear deal. In both cases, do you think that renegotiating these deals will lead to a better outcome? Congressional Republicans have been arguing for tearing up the Iran nuclear deal, which seems highly likely to make the world less safe. 2. Immigration: Trump is, presumably, in favor of greater restrictions on legal immigration and greater deportations[5]. Many Americans are, and so this may (for me) merely be a point of fundamental disagreement. But to be clear, do you merely support deporting "criminal" immigrants (i.e. felons), or do you believe it's necessary to deport as many undocumented residents as possible? Finally, regarding the "Satan 2", to add some perspective: https://www.inverse.com/article/15826-why-you-shouldn-t-be-worried-about-russia-s-satan-2-missile-that-can-destroy-texas https://www.inverse.com/article/15826-why-you-shouldn-t-be-w.... There's a bit of posturing here, but to be clear, the nuclear balance between Russia and the US should not be viewed as changed. Thanks again for your thoughtful replies. It makes me feel a lot better to talk to an actual human with whom I have some disagreements. (Happy to continue by email, by the way, but I don't want to post my email on HN, so you'll have to share one of yours. ;) ) 1: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/05/donald-trump-net-worth http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/05/donald-trump-net-wort... 2: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-09-03/should-donald-trump-have-indexed- https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-09-03/should-do... 3: http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-nationwide-marriage-equality http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-... 4: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/many-trump-supporters-dont-believe-his-wildest-promises--and-they-dont-care/2016/06/06/05005210-28c4-11e6-b989-4e5479715b54_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/many-trump-supporter... 5: http://www.vox.com/2016/11/9/13572030/donald-trump-immigration http://www.vox.com/2016/11/9/13572030/donald-trump-immigrati...