3 ms·

If you're missing something, it's probably because you dismiss what was said. I've seen that happen all too often. For example, suppose a person doesn't want t

by knaq 6y ago

If you're missing something, it's probably because you dismiss what was said. I've seen that happen all too often. For example, suppose a person doesn't want to become a linguistic or religious minority in their own country. When they logically oppose immigration, do you decide that you're hearing a dogwhistle for white supremacy? If so, you're discarding what was actually said and you're substituting false data that supports a pre-determined conclusion that Trump supporters are racist. Another factor is that there has been some truly shocking projection and gaslighting with regard to corruption. Like no other president, Trump has fought corruption, yet he is relentlessly accused of it. The claim that Obama had a "scandal-free presidency" is a cruel joke; his abuse of the intelligence apparatus to target a political opponent made Nixon look saintly. Biden's family has gotten rich off of foreign influence; we have the evidence and there is no alternative explanation. The whole impeachment process started because both Biden and Pelosi had children collecting bribes from Ukranian gas companies, and Trump dared to tell the Ukraine that prosecuting the corrupt was proper. Looking back to Hillary, her actions with classified information would have put any normal person in prison for decades. The contrast with Trump is stunning. For years everybody has investigated Trump in hope of finding something, and everybody has failed. The desire to put America first is real, legitimate, and proper. It's a job requirement for the president. Cutting regulations shot the economy to record highs before that virus hit. Inequality actually dropped. Black and hispanic unemployment was the lowest recorded ever, with records going back over half a century. Trump knew what business needed, and he delivered. Why do you imagine that "he doesn't care about the damage he does"? He is only damaging things that need to be damaged, like the choking bureaucracy. He cares, and he did the damage on purpose, because the damage was needed. If by "damage" you're referring to something like the opinions of the leftist leaders of parasitic countries, yeah he doesn't care and he shouldn't care. The job is to put America first, not to please foreigners.

tempestn 6y ago
I don't know what to say besides that I disagree with almost every single aspect of what you wrote, on either a factual or a moral basis. Often both. Honestly though, we're so far off that I think itemizing everything I disagree with here would be a waste of time. So instead, I'll list what I do agree with. First to answer your question, I don't believe most Trump supporters are racist, although I would suggest you really analyze why decreasing linguistic or religious dominance is threatening to you. I agree that the first (but not only) duty of any world leader is to the people of their country. I agree that cutting regulations, cutting taxes, and encouraging low interest rates likely helped the economy (although other effects of some of those regulatory cuts, especially on climate, are very concerning to me). And to answer your final question, the most recent example of Trump not caring about the damage he does is him currently undermining faith in the democratic process itself in order to avoid admitting defeat. More generally, he will always take opportunities to fire up his base despite any deleterious effects on national unity. And yes, also his actions and rhetoric toward strong allies such as Canada. Framing such as "parasitic countries" is both inaccurate and diplomatically unproductive - from you, but especially from a world leader. I would go further into why I disagree with that approach, but that would lead me into all the things I disagree with here. So instead I'll just ask you to do some research on your other points outside of right-wing sources. The most clear-cut one is this thing about Pelosi's son, so maybe start there.
- knaq 6y ago
  The fear of other language and religion is reasonable. In fact, I'd have to say that a person is extremely foolish if they don't fear it. Language is how we communicate. Communication failure creates isolation, hostility, and loss of productivity. You can see that the map of linguistic diversity at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_diversity_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_diversity_index looks an awful lot like a map of poverty, strife, and general failure to be part of the modern world. There is a connection. Religion just made the news a week or two ago in France, with a teacher's head getting cut off. Pretending these issues don't exist doesn't solve them. Other aspects of culture matter too. It's just more comfortable to know that your neighbors laugh at the same jokes, celebrate the same holidays, and so on. People who want different can leave, but people who want the same have no option other than to fight to keep their culture from being overrun. This idea that there is a problem with "undermining faith in the democratic process itself" suggests that the most important thing in a fraudulent election is to hide the flaws. I hope you were at least fair about that, not complaining at all when Trump or Bush won. I hope you opposed taking those elections to the supreme court. Lots of people claimed that those three elections were stolen, and lots of people even rioted. If you had any complaints whatsoever about those far-cleaner elections, you're just being partisan. I happen to believe that there is a duty to expose problems, including any way by which fraud could go undetected. We shouldn't just trust that an election could be clean; it is dirty until proven clean. The fact that the left has vigorously opposed election integrity efforts is shameful and highly suspicious. If you'd rather Trump didn't have a legitimate argument that the election was stolen, maybe you should have cooperated in securing it against all possible fraud. Have you found the perhaps-mythical unbiased news source? Are there any non-right-wing sources that don't censor the news and maliciously spread misinformation? Anything that spread the Russia hoax or "fine people" hoax is disqualified immediately. If the news source didn't fully cover the Biden laptop, it is censored. Full coverage includes at least a description of where to find the video of Hunter naked and worse with his niece, and it includes mention of the email being DKIM verified. The news is censored if it didn't included coverage of Biden's sundowning and other signs of dementia. The news is censored if it never tied the Ukraine controversy back to Joe Biden being caught on video bragging about how he got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired by threatening to block a billion dollars of foreign aid.

by knaq 6y ago

tempestn 6y ago

I don't know what to say besides that I disagree with almost every single aspect of what you wrote, on either a factual or a moral basis. Often both. Honestly though, we're so far off that I think itemizing everything I disagree with here would be a waste of time. So instead, I'll list what I do agree with. First to answer your question, I don't believe most Trump supporters are racist, although I would suggest you really analyze why decreasing linguistic or religious dominance is threatening to you. I agree that the first (but not only) duty of any world leader is to the people of their country. I agree that cutting regulations, cutting taxes, and encouraging low interest rates likely helped the economy (although other effects of some of those regulatory cuts, especially on climate, are very concerning to me). And to answer your final question, the most recent example of Trump not caring about the damage he does is him currently undermining faith in the democratic process itself in order to avoid admitting defeat. More generally, he will always take opportunities to fire up his base despite any deleterious effects on national unity. And yes, also his actions and rhetoric toward strong allies such as Canada. Framing such as "parasitic countries" is both inaccurate and diplomatically unproductive - from you, but especially from a world leader. I would go further into why I disagree with that approach, but that would lead me into all the things I disagree with here. So instead I'll just ask you to do some research on your other points outside of right-wing sources. The most clear-cut one is this thing about Pelosi's son, so maybe start there.

knaq 6y ago
The fear of other language and religion is reasonable. In fact, I'd have to say that a person is extremely foolish if they don't fear it. Language is how we communicate. Communication failure creates isolation, hostility, and loss of productivity. You can see that the map of linguistic diversity at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_diversity_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_diversity_index looks an awful lot like a map of poverty, strife, and general failure to be part of the modern world. There is a connection. Religion just made the news a week or two ago in France, with a teacher's head getting cut off. Pretending these issues don't exist doesn't solve them. Other aspects of culture matter too. It's just more comfortable to know that your neighbors laugh at the same jokes, celebrate the same holidays, and so on. People who want different can leave, but people who want the same have no option other than to fight to keep their culture from being overrun. This idea that there is a problem with "undermining faith in the democratic process itself" suggests that the most important thing in a fraudulent election is to hide the flaws. I hope you were at least fair about that, not complaining at all when Trump or Bush won. I hope you opposed taking those elections to the supreme court. Lots of people claimed that those three elections were stolen, and lots of people even rioted. If you had any complaints whatsoever about those far-cleaner elections, you're just being partisan. I happen to believe that there is a duty to expose problems, including any way by which fraud could go undetected. We shouldn't just trust that an election could be clean; it is dirty until proven clean. The fact that the left has vigorously opposed election integrity efforts is shameful and highly suspicious. If you'd rather Trump didn't have a legitimate argument that the election was stolen, maybe you should have cooperated in securing it against all possible fraud. Have you found the perhaps-mythical unbiased news source? Are there any non-right-wing sources that don't censor the news and maliciously spread misinformation? Anything that spread the Russia hoax or "fine people" hoax is disqualified immediately. If the news source didn't fully cover the Biden laptop, it is censored. Full coverage includes at least a description of where to find the video of Hunter naked and worse with his niece, and it includes mention of the email being DKIM verified. The news is censored if it didn't included coverage of Biden's sundowning and other signs of dementia. The news is censored if it never tied the Ukraine controversy back to Joe Biden being caught on video bragging about how he got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired by threatening to block a billion dollars of foreign aid.