4 ms·

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 th

by 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...

jimmywanger 10y ago
Just a few points: > 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. I think that renegotiating is always a good idea. Starting off on one extreme and then making concessions is one way of negotiating, and one that I think is the best. That way the person you're negotiating with doesn't quite know how far they can push you, and you might get concessions you might not otherwise get. And it's just renegotiating - nothing is set in stone. Once you start making definitive statements, you start painting yourself in a corner. Since renegotiations under Trump will start at the earliest in 3 months, why would you commit to a course of action now? Lots can change in 3 months, and you don't want your words thrown back in your face. > 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? I would argue that semantically, all undocumented residents are "criminal", as in technically they're breaking the law being here. Now that being said, they do provide a large boost to our economy, so I guess the answer is "it depends". Not to sound too cold-blooded, but a lot of illegal immigrants seem to feel entitled to life in the United States while they are breaking the law. "We've lived here decades and worked very hard! We should be citizens." They fail to realize that they are uninvited guests in our country right now, and we are fully within our rights to send them back to their countries of origin. Once again, Trump has done a great job of not getting nailed down to one specific course of action, because like I said before, a lot can change in 4 months, and he'll get a lot more information once he becomes president. > Yet because the Clinton Foundation takes Saudi contributions you assume Clinton is opposed to LGBT rights, and you assume otherwise about Trump? Also she advocates for the intake of refugees from primarily fundamentalist Islamic countries, many of whom believe in Sharia law. Trump has softened his immigration stance on Muslims to be "extreme vetting" for countries known to be jihadi hotbeds. Those are the countries most oppressive to LGBT rights, and I think it's good that we restrict immigration from there.
- md_ 10y ago
  Thanks for explaining, as always. Specifically regarding how immigration relates to LGBT rights: Is there any statistical link between anti-LGBT hate-crime and immigration from Muslim countries? Perhaps more to the point, if LGBT activists (HRC in particular) don't feel the same way, how do you explain that? Do they not realize Trump is (despite opposing their marriage rights and opposing protecting them from discrimination) actually their ally? I find that claim startling. Regarding illegal immigrants, it's a tough issue. I thought www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/31/untangling-the-immigration-debate was a good broad summary of thought here. I will say that I disagree with the criticism of "entitlement." It's hard to know what you would do in their shoes, but I think it's obvious that all humans have some entitlements to some rights, and, even if we find it necessary to enforce a certain law, we should be aware of the human motivations behind such actions.

by md_ 10y ago

jimmywanger 10y ago

Just a few points: > 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. I think that renegotiating is always a good idea. Starting off on one extreme and then making concessions is one way of negotiating, and one that I think is the best. That way the person you're negotiating with doesn't quite know how far they can push you, and you might get concessions you might not otherwise get. And it's just renegotiating - nothing is set in stone. Once you start making definitive statements, you start painting yourself in a corner. Since renegotiations under Trump will start at the earliest in 3 months, why would you commit to a course of action now? Lots can change in 3 months, and you don't want your words thrown back in your face. > 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? I would argue that semantically, all undocumented residents are "criminal", as in technically they're breaking the law being here. Now that being said, they do provide a large boost to our economy, so I guess the answer is "it depends". Not to sound too cold-blooded, but a lot of illegal immigrants seem to feel entitled to life in the United States while they are breaking the law. "We've lived here decades and worked very hard! We should be citizens." They fail to realize that they are uninvited guests in our country right now, and we are fully within our rights to send them back to their countries of origin. Once again, Trump has done a great job of not getting nailed down to one specific course of action, because like I said before, a lot can change in 4 months, and he'll get a lot more information once he becomes president. > Yet because the Clinton Foundation takes Saudi contributions you assume Clinton is opposed to LGBT rights, and you assume otherwise about Trump? Also she advocates for the intake of refugees from primarily fundamentalist Islamic countries, many of whom believe in Sharia law. Trump has softened his immigration stance on Muslims to be "extreme vetting" for countries known to be jihadi hotbeds. Those are the countries most oppressive to LGBT rights, and I think it's good that we restrict immigration from there.

md_ 10y ago
Thanks for explaining, as always. Specifically regarding how immigration relates to LGBT rights: Is there any statistical link between anti-LGBT hate-crime and immigration from Muslim countries? Perhaps more to the point, if LGBT activists (HRC in particular) don't feel the same way, how do you explain that? Do they not realize Trump is (despite opposing their marriage rights and opposing protecting them from discrimination) actually their ally? I find that claim startling. Regarding illegal immigrants, it's a tough issue. I thought www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/31/untangling-the-immigration-debate was a good broad summary of thought here. I will say that I disagree with the criticism of "entitlement." It's hard to know what you would do in their shoes, but I think it's obvious that all humans have some entitlements to some rights, and, even if we find it necessary to enforce a certain law, we should be aware of the human motivations behind such actions.