I support Donald Trump


In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train.

Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help.

I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal.

In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker.

As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk.

Finally, in terms of his provocative actions/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person.

If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.

  • 🤔Changed Author's View
    2 years ago

    Hey, first I just want to say thank you for doing all of this. You already probably get a lot of flak for simply expressing your views, and I'm sorry if you've heard all of this before. Many others can and have offered more economic based analysis, but I simply want to offer my personal perspective of why I feel uneasy about Trump and his presidency.

    I don't think that everything about Trump is bad, and I do believe that many times he is justified in his defense of himself, but to me, it is his own love for himself above all that makes me afraid. He is oftentimes unwilling to see the validity in any perspective other than his own, which is an essential part of not only being a good representative, but also a good leader.

    Kellyanne Conway's statements at Meet the Press are incredibly troubling. Alternative facts? There can be alternate analyses. There can be logical refutations (the pictures of the crowds are at different times, etc.). But there cannot be two different sets of facts. She did not even attempt to reconcile the two perspectives or offer a reason why they were right and the news was incorrect. This isn't even something that matters. I sure as hell don't care how big the crowd is. But if his administration is willing to lie right from the get go, when the stakes don't even matter, I have full faith that they will have no qualms lying to the American people when they believe they're doing it "for a greater good."

    His statements using his own ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with him sends to me the message that he is willing to say anything in order to "win." In response to criticisms from the family of a fallen soldier saying that Trump had made no sacrifices for his country, he refuted it with what he felt were his sacrifices but he added on, "If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably — maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me." It's horrifying what countries like Saudi Arabia, etc. are doing in the terms of women's rights in the name of Islam, but this was simply a tactic to distract from the points. He made these allegations that had (1) nothing to do with their statements against him (2) had no proof and (3) used their religion and ethnicities as arguments against them. This is scary to me. Obviously, he should be able to defend himself from statements he believes misrepresents him regardless of who they were made by, but the disregard for our service members simply based in religion and ethnicity in order to invalidate criticisms speaks volumes to me, especially since that was his knee-jerk reaction to the question. If he is willing to throw the dignities and reputation of an American military family under the bus to protect himself, what else will he sacrifice? You might dismiss this as anecdotal, and it's not particularly analysis based, but it is important how he treats people who don't agree with him.

    If he cannot treat those that disagree with him with respect, then what happens when there comes a time that he may disagree with the American public?

    Trump does not represent me. He does not represent many people. That would be fine, but he does not listen to the concerns of those who do not support him. He lashes out at criticism. This will hinder him from representing the American people effectively, especially if the interests of the country and his own eventually unalign.

    Just because it's in both Trump's and the American people's best interest to not start a war doesn't mean all of our interests will align. You seem to be unconcerned and even submit it as a benefit that Trump is unwilling to put himself at risk. To me, a president must be able to put himself at risk to help the American people. His actions do not give me faith that he would choose the America over himself, especially if he thought he could get away with it.

    I thank you again, and would love to be proved wrong as well. I want to feel hope for the future, but find it increasingly more difficult as his administration is moving forward. I am sure we can both learn things from each other.

    *edit: grammar

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      Thank you very much! In such a divisive political climate, its nice to see some humanity.

      On the subject of alternative facts, I agree the wording of "alternative facts" is bad, but I think the message is good. I believe the perspective is that, if what is being presented to you as fact is actually false, then its "alternative facts" that are true.

      While your arguments are anecdotal, they are put together in such a way that instead of being a pointless story to dismiss, they come together to support a conclusion.

      At present, Trump doesn't concern me, I don't believe he is a threat and I hope I never have reason to fear him. However, your post has shown me an aspect to him that I shouldn't support, and why he is so scary to those who disagree with him. ∆

      Also, if you'd like some stories about him that made him seem a lot more nice and human to me, even if he is unarguably flawed, I could share.

    • 2 years ago

      Same with you! It's hard sometimes to remember that those who don't share your perspective have really good reasons to do so, and your posts have helped me understand those who voted for Trump.

      Thank you for your perspective and for listening. Everything (including the list you posted later down from /u/JournalismIsDead ) has allowed me to remember that everyone involved is a real, actual person — and that we are ultimately more similar than different. Even if I don't have much faith in Trump as a leader right now, I do have faith in our country and in people like you. :)

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      Once more, thank you.

      I think its a great country already, and that despite the extremists on both sides, the majority of people are good, reasonable, and trying to do what is best for everyone.

  • 🤔Changed Author's View
    2 years ago

    Can I ask, why do you support Trump? What specific policies of his do you actually like and want to see enacted? What proposals of his do you think will actually be effective and helpful? On immigration and the wall, you say that you don't think either will really do anything. On bringing back jobs, you say that Trump will be unsuccessful because of cheap foreign labor. On diplomacy and military power, your only point seems to be that Trump won't start any wars (which is good but that seems like the bare minimum you'd want from a president).

    None of this sounds like support, it just sounds like you're open to waiting and seeing if he succeeds. You haven't listed anything you actively like or hope for from him. In my mind, to be a supporter you have to actively want and advocate for certain policies of your candidate to succeed.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      What you put for "it just sounds like you're open to waiting and seeing if he succeeds" is honestly spot on. ∆ just for the sake of making me realize that.

      I voted him into office because I wasn't opposed to him, and even if he did nothing more than stack the supreme court, I would see it as a victory against all the people talking down to him and all the establishment politicians on both sides who I came to resent. I liked his positions and I certainly wasn't against them, but I was also doubtful of their effectiveness (I do think they'll work to a certain extent, just they won't completely solve problems.) Now, I'm just left mildly optimistic and waiting to see.

    • 2 years ago

      Oh hot damn, my first delta, thanks! And here I thought I was just asking a clarifying question too, I didn't realize that was a persuasive argument.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      You changed my view, that's good enough :P

      Sometimes stepping back and clarifying the problem is all that needs to be done.

  • 🤔Changed Author's View
    2 years ago

    Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal

    What liberal views did you/ do you hold?

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      I believe I quite socially liberal. I am bi, and think that the government has no business interfering at all in private affairs.

      I think freedom of speech should be expanded even more than it already is within the US, and one point of disagreement I have with Trump is his view of libel laws.

      One thing that first pushed me away from the Democratic party was the Obama administration's actions towards surveillance, private rulings, and prosecuting whistle blowers.

      Economically I am not, and never have, been very liberal.

  • 🤔Changed Author's View
    2 years ago

    The arguments I saw for him/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature.

    I have the exact opposite view. Want to share those logical views and we can discuss?

    Your statement on immigration is not logical. We can agree that the stated reason for the order is to prevent terrorism. You believe as I do that terrorism is not a threat. Therefore this action is not logical.

    If the intent is to stop immigration due to increasing nationalization then the reason is a lie. We can argue nationalization vs globalization separately.

    EDIT: Adding wall and jobs.

    You agree the wall won't stop most immigration. The logical conclusion is that you don't need a wall. 13B to stop some, unquantified amount of immigration is illogical and whatever that stops will just switch to the method that works.

    Trade is not just about jobs. It's about prices. If you impose tariffs, sure jobs may come back. However, in the US it's cheaper to build robots to do menial work than pay a person, the wages are just too high. So we will bring back factories but not jobs.

    Our prices of goods will skyrocket. We import almost all of what we buy. The reason it is so cheap is because it's made in China. You make the same thing in the US it'll cost 3x as much. Businesses will die due to lack of demand and those new jobs and many more will disappear and we will go into a great depression.

    Beware of anyone who only speaks to one side of an economic decision.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      I think that my disagreement with you on both terrorism and immigration comes from the fact that a small amount does happen, and that there is a non-zero correlation between the two. Terrorism is not a serious threat to national security, but some terrorist acts are committed, and eliminating entry from high risk nations decreases the risk. The wall won't stop most illegal immigration, but it will stop some. It is a small step towards progress, and in my opinion better than nothing.

      In terms of economics, I admit that I am not exceptionally well informed. My understanding is that the US as a country is in something of a bubble, and within that bubble trying to both have their cake and eat it too. We cannot continue to enjoy both low price and high income, one will have to give. So we can either adjust to match more with the rest of the world, meaning lower jobs/income but still cheap goods, or we can isolate and keep high income, with the trade off being high prices. I view Trump's actions as an attempt towards one outcome rather than just leaving the market to eventually kill itself. If you have anything I could read suggesting why one option should be preferred over the other, I'd be interested in seeing it.

    • 2 years ago

      Your facts are incorrect. ZERO fatal terrorist acts on american soil have come from the 7 banned countries. So it's not a non-zero correlation it is inarguably ZERO correlation for this particular action. Further, 80% of all terrorist attacks are committed by Americans. Born in the USA, just like Bruce Springsteen.

      The price of our goods is low due to globalization, countries with lower incomes produce our goods. Our income is higher because we have minimum wage laws and labor regulations which those countries do not have. Globalization is the very reason we have 'high' wages and low prices.

      The market is in no danger of killing itself, in fact it is doing great.

      Trump wants to cut tax and regulation and business will grow creating some jobs, however most of that profit will go to the rich while the government gets more into debt.

      Further if he were to re-negotiate trade deals and impost tariffs prices would go up.

      Both of these combined are not good for the poor, and more of us would become poor.

  • 🤔Changed Author's View
    2 years ago

    On the wall, you seem to think it would be somewhat effective. Could you give some numbers?

    How much illegal immigration do you think it will it stop? And how much are you thinking it will cost?

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      Quickly checking Wikipedia, the DHS apparently reported in 2015 that 674,000 illegal immigrants enter through border crossing. Assuming the wall was built so that it was unscalable, I think that it stopping 50% of that would be a very fair lower estimate. Other comments in this thread have put the estimated cost at 20~ billion initial cost, and 1~ billion per year maintenance fee. While initially it seems like quite the expensive investment, factoring in the jobs it will create and how it becomes more efficient as time goes on, I think it will be worth it.

    • 2 years ago

      Spending $20 billion to stop 337,000 immigrants means you are spending just under $60,000 for each immigrant you stop. That's a pretty terrible investment strategy right off the bat.

      Even if you spend $20 billion to build it, and another $1 billion a year maintaining, and then look at the ROI over 10 years, it's still not rosy. Assuming it stops 3 million immigrants over 10 years (and that is a huge if) , you are still spending $10,000 for every immigrant trying to cross the border. And I'm using your figures there.

      Even if you extend that ROI over 30 years, you are still looking at over $5000 per immigrant.

      Now, when you think of the opportunity cost of what the US could invest $30-$50 billion dollars into instead, its boggling. That's a huge sum of money. We could go to Mars for that price.

      EDIT: So for comparison, let's say we hired border guards, and paid them $100,000 a year. As long as each border guard intercepts 20 illegal immigrants each year for 30 years, he's cheaper than the wall. And as a bonus, that's a ton of good paying American jobs.

      EDIT 2: Here is another option. Over 30 years, it costs us $50 billion. The US/Mexico border is 2000 miles long. That averages out to 25 million dollars a mile. Now, divide by 30 years, that is $833,000 per year, per mile. So, what else can we do for $833,000 each year to protect a mile of wilderness? Well, one simple option is just to pay border guards to stand there. We could hire 24 people, have them work 8 hour shifts, so at any time we'd have 8 people per mile along the border. So, every 660 feet, you'd have an active border guard standing there. And we could afford to pay those border guards $35K a year, creating 48000 jobs.

      Hell, with a little ingenuity and roving patrols, we could have all the effectiveness of a wall for a fraction of the price.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      Some other people made this point before you, but this is the most eloquent and well done in terms of numbers and arguments.

      Thank you for the information! ∆

  • 2 years ago

    As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk.

    This is the view I want to see if I can change. More specifically:

    from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored.

    While you're probably right, I don't think we can rule out that while we can't be ignored, our importance can be significantly diminished. As it stands, the US is the sole superpower of the world, and so far we've been unchallenged for the past 25 years. It's safe to say that China is now becoming a threat to America's hegemony, and I think Trump recognizes that. At least, he seemed to during the campaign, what with constantly talking about China's growth. The power the US has currently has been built up after years of encouraging trade and globalization with other, weaker countries, and forming alliances all around the globe to curb expansion of rival powers. Now at first glance, Trump looks like the guy who's willing to keep our position with a strong arm. Sounds great for America right? However, his policies completely ignore reality, and we can see this in his constant threats to kick out NATO members and more recently, backing out of the TPP. Not only does backing out of trade deals hurt US economic influence in other countries, but it allows for other countries to invest in developing countries. The big threat of the TPP was that it was going to hurt the American job market, but it was going to allow America to have a huge hand in a group of countries that make up 40% of the world GDP, thus helping solidify our global position while keeping China from stepping in and doing the same thing.

    He's also talked about kicking countries out of NATO, which would inevitably lead to the loss of American bases, all the while wanting to increase American military spending. Why? What's the point of increasing the size of our already huge military while also diminishing our military presence? Not to mention he has a persona of being a huge prick who surrounds himself with other huge pricks, and that doesn't bode well for any negotiations with other countries. I mean, look at how he's treating president Nieto. He seems to think America can just boss people around even if we have no leverage. What are we going to do when Mexico doesn't pay for the wall like he says? Invade them? Shoot ourselves in the foot by cutting off trade our ripping up NAFTA? Which he has already said he wants to do by the way.

    Point is: he's giving away the power America has by throwing away leverage and allowing other rival powers to step into the empty vacuum he's leaving. He doesn't seem to understand America can't just tell people what to do, even though it seems like we can.

    I kinda just wanted to see if I could argue this point, just for the sake of argument.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      A fair argument. Let me ask though, if American doesn't have the leverage to make anything happen now when things are tested, were they really powerful in the first place? I do see your point about it causing some diminishing of power, I just don't see any particularly meaningfully harmful examples, at least not yet.

  • 2 years ago

    For the love of god. First Bush the younger goes to town in the middle east and destabilizes the region for a generation. Then when the refugees start to flow it's suddenly not America's problem anymore?

    America, more than any other country in the world, has a responsibility to mitigate the suffering in Syria. It was the prime mover of that shit show, and the country should own the mess.

    Now, the above is a moral argument.

    There is also one rooted in real politic. The ban on travel from muslim countries is not only a dick move of elephantine proportions, it's is counterproductive in meeting its stated objective: keeping America safe.

    First, it is an excellent recruiting point for Islamic Radicals, who can now rightly point to the fact that the American administration is discriminating against its Muslim brothers.

    Second, it weakens the position of our regional allies, who are now even more isolated and on the defensive in their own countries

    Third, it will hurt the economies of these countries (just as Trump's idiotic threat of a trade war), further fanning the flames of extremism.

    And don't get me started on the wall. The US economy WINS with the supply of low income immigrant labor. They are not taking American jobs, because there are not enough Americans willing to pick fruit and clean toilets.

    This blame the immigrant and create an enemy (muslims) shtick is straight out of the fascist playbook.

    Yes, u/LordKX, FASCIST.

    Trump is a callous lunatic with no regard for the rest of the world. You can still redeem yourself, but time is running out.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      I think that American bombing the shit out of the countries the ban was implemented on would be a more convincing point for terrorist recruiters. In addition, if the people who we would be letting in are so easy to convince to turn against us, I think that's all the more reason to completely close them off.

      I'm somewhat conflicted on the regional ally position. For instance, I don't particularly approve of Saudi Arabia, but I can understand why borders with them will remain open. As for those who have already been closed off, while I don't disagree that it weakens our standing with them, I see no or very little reason why the US should care about maintaining ties with them.

      I think that, in terms of economics, while the US does benefit from low prices due to trade with poorer nations, that exact trade also hurts the US. The US can't have it both ways, taking cheap goods from poor nation while maintaining all of the benefits of being a rich nation. In terms of the fruit that you mention, maybe fruit prices shouldn't be so low, and fruit pickers should be paid enough that its something American worker do. Honestly, on a moral level, I find it somewhat repulsive how illegal workers are treated as essentially a slave underclass within the US. However, I don't think the situation is to legalize them, that just puts them in the same boat as US citizens. The point being through all of this that I think prices going up is an acceptable cost for more jobs. Since it is one of the topics I am less informed on, if you have additional information you can present on economics, I am very interested.

      I have no seen widespread fascist beliefs even within the alt-right circles I frequent, and "You can still redeem yourself" is the kind of don't-even-bother-thinking-just-feel phrase which first pushed me towards my current leanings.

  • 2 years ago

    Hi! As a (Canadian) immigrant, here's my take.

    Now that the election is over and that there's no more choice, I think that it would be beneficial to support principles rather than people. You don't have to love or hate everything that Trump does. For instance, for the little that I know about it, I think that it's a positive thing that Trump supports safe zones in Syrian and Yemen and that he has Saudi Arabia with him on this. Still, that might be one of the very few things that happened in the last few days that I'm comfortable with.

    I think that it is possible to make a rational point around an immigration policy that makes people feel safer, and clearly, there are people who don't feel safe from ill-intentioned immigrants. (I don't agree with these people, but they undeniably exist.) However, I'm very concerned by how the order was implemented. This is not just a ban on new visas like Obama ordered in 2011: this is also a suspension of existing visas. I agree that a non-citizen to a country generally has no unalienable "right to enter" that country, but to me, suspending existing visas en masse is an extremely scary thing. My world literally depends on my visa. As I'm getting used to this place, I'm reminded that I'm here building my adult life on the good will of the President; and as luck would have it, I'm on a TN, which exist through NAFTA. At least, I'm fortunate that it's not hell back home!

    You call the green card situation unfortunate, but I call it terrifying and entirely avoidable. I'm told that the DHS's initial interpretation was that green card holders were excluded from the blanket ban, only to be overruled. Someone took extra steps to cause this to happen. This is not something that I can advocate for.

    Generally speaking, a major problem that I have with Trump's behavior so far is that he does not appear to be disposed to hear or represent the interests of people that he disagrees with. We already knew that, but there was a clear reminder with the statements around the firing of Yates:

    Officials from the State Department circulated a draft memo of dissent on Monday, saying Trump's move would hurt America's image abroad and inflame anti-American sentiment.

    White House spokesman Sean Spicer dismissed the memo. "These career bureaucrats have a problem with it? I think that they should either get with the program or they can go," he told reporters at his daily briefing.

    Despite being elected with less than half of the popular vote, Trump will run this country like he got 100% of it. It's a reasonable thing to do when you run a private company, but not when you run a country. How should anyone in the majority of Americans who do not support Trump feel about him telling people to either like his policies or get off the boat? Even though the statement targets federal workers, a lot of people in the United States support the views of these federal workers.

    (For the record, I don't think that what Yates did was particularly brave or patriotic. She had 2 days left on the job to lose.)

    Of course, there's a whole lot more going on. Trump not being interested in receiving intelligence briefings is concerning. Trump thinking that climate change is a hoax is concerning. Trump appointing a woman who wants to dismantle the public school system as the secretary of education is concerning. These are just a few of the other things about a Trump presidency that have me worried.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      Hey! My grandmother was a Canadian immigrant too.

      I think you have a quite reasonable view, thank you for your response. I certainly don't agree with everything Trump has done, and you're right that I may be understanding the green card situation as simply unfortunate. With that said, I think I still have enough in common with Trump to support him.

      Thank you for your input!

  • 2 years ago

    First of all, the things Trump had said are just "un-PC". They are registered, sexist, xenophobic, and include admissions of sexual harassment/assault.

    Secondly, the wall is estimated to cost 12-25 billion dolllars just to build. That doesn't include the cost to man and maintain it. You truly think that is a minimal cost? And is worth paying when it won't solve the problem?

    In the first week of his Presidency, he has blatantly lied to the public on numerous occasions. We aren't talking about stretching the truth. We're talking about downright lies. He's brought the country to a brink of a constitution crisis by issuing a possibly unconstitutional executive order that he didn't even bother to consult the office of legal counsel on. That's the office that the President should just with to make sure his order is illegal. He has removed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (an experienced 4 star general) and the National Intelligence Director from the National Security Council, and he replaced them with Steve Bannon: a man whose last job was running a "news" service that regularly published racist stories and who has ties to the alt-right.

    Trump's first week was nothing but a shitshow and it's looking like week 2 will be more of the same.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      I believe we likely have different views of what makes something sexist or xenophobic. If you have an admission of sexual assault aside from the pussy grab tape (which I don't think constitutes sexual assault), I would like to see it.

      Based on a quick google search, the US budget is 4 trillion. 25 billion, the high estimate, isn't even a single percent of the budget for one year. And while I admit it won't completely solve the problem on its own, I do believe the wall will help to some extent, meaning the money isn't wasted at all.

      My understanding of the executive order was that it was ruled by one federal judge to be unconstitutional. Given that there has been precedent for the president giving such an executive order, I'll be curious to see how other courts rule/what comes of the matter. Considering how many people in government straight up hate him, and that switching out government roles when a new party takes power isn't exactly unheard of, I'm willing to go along with him putting the people he want in.

      From my perspective as a Trump support, I think his first week has been quite good, and that its startling how many of his promises he has delivered on.

  • 2 years ago

    The only positive you listed was he's anti pc and so are you. I don't think people who voted for him picked that reason. Throughout your post it's basically "this won't work but I get why he's doing it". I'll be a dick and avoid the typically "Muslim ban =bad" you see on the Internet. He's actively making our allies scared with his Russian ties. Let's say he does Germany just far enough to where we are just barely allies. An unprovable threat is caught by their intelligence, will they share it quickly? Or Mexico? The problem he isn't doing is looking at the whole picture.

    In 10 days people are not just a little dissatisfied, They are scared and worse off heres why.

    Mexico and the US could get in to a trade war.

    48 percent of his voters didn't agree to stop all money to planned parenthood.

    Russia got special treatment without the same assessment from many members of his party.

    China is positioning itself as the rational trade partner.

    Isis isn't gaining ground and they haven't for awhile but a lot of citizens died today alone

    Don't forget how the people filling his cabinet are billionaires a lot seem to be heading a department they don't think should exist

    Plus trump promised to end our plans to end global warming which matters to more than half the country.

    And the ban.

    All this in 10 days

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      I'm asking why I personally should not support him. For every point you have, I have a response, which I can go through if you so wish. However, generally, the people you're describing are not me.

      In terms of specifically diplomatic relations, you are going to have some friends, and some enemies. What happens if previously a threat was caught by Russian intelligence? If Russia and our allies have issues with one another, maybe we should stay neutral and befriend who we can instead of playing favorites and becoming involved.

      I will also quickly mention global warming. While I do think global warming is an issue, and it is my main disagreement with Trump, I think that the data surrounding global warming isn't as conclusive and it is generally made out to be, and in addition that regardless of what Trump does, since the US is such a small global contributor to global warming, the ultimate outcome of the planet is independent of Trump's actions.

  • 2 years ago

    First off, I also thank you for posting your views and engaging in dialogue about them. I can understand and appreciate every single reason you dislike the DNC / Hillary. I was scared of Hillary too, she is hawkish and I don't trust everything she says because she is a very good "politician", so again I understand the appeal of someone who wasn't like that. But to me, it was so very clear that Trump was much, much, worse.

    How do you reconcile his constant flip-flopping and denial of facts? He lies about meeting with Putin, he lies about saying that climate change is a hoax created by China, he lies about releasing his tax returns. The man very regularly denies things there is video / photo evidence of him saying! This scares me because to me it shows he's capable of anything. Yes, Hillary lies / politicians lie, but they can be held accountable in a way that Trump refuses to. He takes responsibility for nothing he says and I think words are incredibly powerful.

    You are also turned off by ad hominem attacks, Trump himself engages in very petulant name calling and bullying tactics. I know you said you're not PC and you find them blown out of proportion, but he said some pretty terrible things about people that were truly sexist. Sexism is simply discriminating someone based on their sex, and the way he derrogatorily speaks about women is different than how he speaks about men. It is disrespectful in a way that tells about his character. Let's not forget he literally did brag about sexually assualting women. Maybe you (incorrectly) disagree that we live in a rape culture, but his saying this reveals so much about him -- that he thinks he can take what he wants, that he doesn't care how others feel or what they want. And even if he was bragging with "locker room talk" and he's never done it, it still shows he idolizes behaviour like that. To me, it is truly inexcusable.

    He ran as "for the people" but he is NOTHING like the people -- he is a billionaire who inherited a ton of money to start off with and is FRIENDS with the people he criticized Hillary for speaking to. How do you feel about him "draining the swamp"? He has stacked it with not only more of the same kind of people, but people who outright deny / oppose the very institution they are supposed to oversee. His conflicts of interest are TERRIFYING to me. He stands to use that office for his own personal (and familial) gain like crazy -- the man is directly invested in the North Dakota Access Pipeline and is obviously in support of it, why would he even consider going against his own financial investment? That is just one example of that too. Again, if he cared about being an honest leader he would put his assets in a blind trust but he's not even trying to LOOK like he's avoiding a conflict of interest. He just doesn't care.

    The thing about jobs is, outsourcing for them for cheaper is only about money. It benefits the people at the top, and it makes things worse for workers and people on the bottom. So what do you want your leader to care about? Improving the quality of life for everybody or maintaining the status quo of the rich get richer? If he cared about America, he would be HAPPY to pay American workers living wages at his companies and investments and be proud of it, but he doesn't, he himself outsources. That action reveals what he truly cares about -- money. And thinking that somehow makes him right for the job to fix the problems he exploits is the same logic as hiring a burglar who robbed you to help with your security -- he's hosing you twice.

    He is also LITERALLY endorsed by the KKK. And maybe you think, but hey, I'm not racist and those aren't my views, it's still telling about his campaign and message that it speaks to people like that. Something he is doing and saying is connecting with true racists. So that can't really be discounted. And again, he down plays it like it's no big deal. If I was running for office and racists started endorsing me I would do absolutely EVERYTHING I could do disavvow it and if not, drop out, because obviously my message was being so misconstrued. But again, he doesn't really care about that.

    He does and did incite violence -- the way he didn't allow for peaceful protest and made reference to what "used to be done" to people like that is scary. Saying he would pay legal bills of his supporters who hurt others is inciting violence. And what good does that do? If you believe in free speech you don't want to punch your opponent in the face.

    I feel like this is only scratching the surface, but these were some of the things about his campaign and policy that was glaring to me before he was elected. However, I feel like his actual policy after being elected is scarier than I thought it would be. The alarms are going off for me like crazy about his thirst for power and inability to hear critique or criticism. His travel ban on those seven countries is a racist move -- Guiliani himself said that Trump was looking for a legal way to do a "muslim ban". If it was truly about "terror" he would not only be banning countries like Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Egypt, but he would be looking at right-wing white Christians in the US itself because they kill more people than any other group. If he honestly wanted to protect American lives he would be addressing the gun problem the country has, not banning EVERYBODY from certian countries, including doctors, lawyers, translators, students, children, etc.

    *edited for formatting

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      And thank you too for responding in a polite manner! If you want me to explain my view on each one of your points, then I will, but I want to start off by saying that the current political climate is an extremely divisive one, and based on what you've said here I think you've been seeing mostly one side of it, since a lot of your points are very one-sided, distorted views.

      Even if you don't like a single one of Trump's policies and think hes an idiot, I really hope for your sake that you don't see him a literally Hitler and a completely terrible person. The world isn't nearly as black and white, and to see somebody like that in power, of course things are terrifying.

      In a response to the top comment in this thread, somebody asked about good things Trump has done, and stories to humanize him. I would suggest you look at some of those.

      And hey, I hope you have a good day!

    • 2 years ago

      I would love to hear your answers / replies to my comments, because while they are "one-sided", to me that was the side of Trump that stood out very clearly and the reasons I do not support him. I know that he is a human with a family he loves and is complex like the rest of us, I am not trying to dehumanize him with my summary, simply to explain the aspects about his candidacy (which is both his platform and who I think he is generally as a person) that made me not vote for him. I don't think he is evil, but I don't think he truly cares about most people either. I also am not arguing that he has done nothing good -- he has employed a lot of people, inspired a lot of people, and meant a lot to a lot of people -- but I think in all those areas he gains more than he gives and that is not the kind of leader I am interested in.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      In response to the lying, I think that often he says things within certain contexts or with certain meanings that, when taken out of those contexts, have different meanings. In addition, I think he is not the most eloquent speaker, and that a lot of things he says are misunderstood. I have not look into every case well enough to say this definitively, but I would suspect the examples you bring up are something similar. As an example, maybe he meets with Putin, has a nice chat, gets congratulated, nothing more. An interviewer asks him "Mr Trump, why did you meet Mr Putin to talk about how he helped you rigged the election?" Trump gets pissed, starts going on about how "He didn't meet Putin like that, he didn't get helped, he didn't meet Putin." Suddenly a headline runs reading "Trump denies meeting Putin." I have no idea what happened in the case you mentioned, but as a potential example for what I saw happen multiple times over the election cycle before getting bored.

      I don't like Trump for his attacks on other people. While normally I think they're justified, I also don't find them convincing. I think it would be sexist for him to talk about men the way he does and then not do the same for women. I don't think he bragged about sexual assault, I think he bragged about how much women want him. I agree its not exactly role model behavior, but I don't think its an issue.

      I agree he isn't very much like the average citizen. However, he talked about issue facing the average citizen in a way his opposition on both sides didn't, and I think this was a large part of his appeal for many people. I believe Trump has the approach of picking the most qualified candidates for the position, and in terms of qualification its hard to argue with success. I agree people need to watch his moves carefully, but just the picks alone aren't in inherently bad. He has stated he wants to shrink the size of government, so picking people who oppose the institutions they run makes sense. Given that Trump is doing a favor to the American people by running on a populist platform so successful it got him elected, I think it would be unreasonable to expect him to give up everything hes spent his life working on. Now, if conflict of interest does come up past what's standard for politicians, sure, hang him up, but until then, as long as he delivers on his campaign promises I don't care.

      For economics, he outsourced to stay competitive, as did many other countries. This was one of the reason why he ran, because he wanted to stop the cycle. You're completely right about who outsourcing benefits. That's the idea behind ending free trade agreements, he wants to disincentivize outsourcing.

      There are multiple different branches of the KKK, and many different leaders within. Some endorsed Trump, others endorsed Hillary. Dropping out because somebody you don't like endorses you is virtue signalling a little bit too hard, sure disavow them and try to focus on the message you want, but skinheads vote right and commies vote left, based on your proposal we'd only get third party (which tbf might not be bad).

      When did he not allow peaceful protests? And I believe the comment about "what used to be done" was in regard to violent protesting. As for the legal bill comments, I agree it was crass, but once again, look at the context, it was for a protester at one of his rallies interrupting his right to free speech who was being violent towards the attendees while they were being thrown out.

      As for the "Muslim Ban," Trump didn't ban immigration from either the majority of Muslim countries or the largest Muslim countries, and regardless of religion, people from those countries are banned. Yes, Guiliani said what he did, but Trump also screwed Guiliani over, so its not like there's no motive for him to lie. As for Saudi Arabia and Egypt, while I agree with you in principal, I believe the idea behind the ban is that those two countries both have economic influence, and better government structure such that immigrants can be better screened.

      On your comment about gun deaths, for the record, the majority of gun deaths in the united states are suicides, and rather than focusing on white Christians because they commit the largest total number, why not focus on male blacks, since they commit murder at a vastly higher rate than whites? Careful now with your racial based justice, and just because its against whitey doesn't mean its okay.

      Basically, while its perfectly fine for you to not support him and not agree with his viewpoints, I think you need to consider alternative perspective, it not for the sake of changing your opinion, then at least for the sake of more accurate information. And hey, some things, like the pussy grabbing, are probably just matters of opinion that there is no middle ground or room for debate for.

      I hope this has been informative for you, and not in a bad way. And that even if you don't like Trump, you at least don't fear so much for the country.

  • 2 years ago

    Instead of building a wall why don't we fix the pipes in Flint? Or pay for a year of education for 1.3 million kids? Or fund research for AIDS/cancer? Or subsidize small business? Or pay for housing for all 49,993 homeless veterans? Or pay for food for the hungry? Or pay for the adoption fees for all 415000 foster kids in America? Because that's what you can do with the money for a wall that will stop "some" illegal immigration.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      I would agree to fix Flint over the wall, or to pay adoption fees for foster kids if enough parents were willing to adopt, even if many of the adoptions likely wouldn't be successful. As for the others, I think its a matter of the likelihood of return on investment. The wall would help year after year for only small maintenance fees, where for the others its questionable how much impact even a sum like 20 billion would actually have. Honestly, I think there are much better ways the US budget could be spent, and many of the options you suggest would be, if the budget has to stay the same size, be good ways to spend (though I'd prefer private to state mandated charity generally). However, given that the wall has such a small cost as a percent of the budget, compared to how it will stop, even just some, illegal immigration for years, I believe it would be worth it.

  • 2 years ago

    Great topic for discussion and it looks like people are being quite civil which is refreshing. Here are my reasons for why I don't support Donald Trump, I don't know if they will change your views but I'll give it a go.

    1. The 7 majority Muslim countries that he banned immigration from have been of minimal threat to the US and have not produced any terrorist attacks since 9/11. I believe Trump has some other agenda here (what, I don't know), but if he really cared about protecting the US from terrorists he would have included the much more radicalized countries in the ban such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt with a particular emphasis on Saudi Arabia since they were linked to 9/11. Trump has received money from Saudi Arabia and does business dealings with them so I feel that there is a huge conflict of interest there.

    Also he showed a complete disregard for other peoples lives by banning even people with green cards or other immigration documents.

    Disclaimer: I don't believe in any Muslim ban, most Muslims are not terrorists, they aren't the big threat to the west. I just believe that if Trump wants to protect the US against terrorists he has to be fair about it.

    1. He wants to deregulate mining and fracking ventures, and explore more areas for coal, oil and gas. He even made the CEO of Exxon Mobil the Secretary of State. I think of all things this is one of the most dangerous. Fracking produces earthquakes which will lead to millions of dollars in damages. Coal, oil and gas all produce lots of greenhouse gases and pollution that will further exacerbate the climate change issue (which Trump believes is just a hoax by China).

    2. Trump wants to remove the US from international climate change agreements and defund green energy plans, and on top of that, destroy the EPA. Again, green energy is our future. The US is one of the biggest polluters in the world already.

    3. I think the wall is a terrible idea and a complete waste of tax payers money. Architects have estimated it will cost at least $40 billion. The US has had a net negative number of illegal immigrants since 2008, meaning more illegals have been leaving than coming in.

    4. Deporting all illegal immigrants is also a really bad idea. Most illegal immigrants have been living in the US for over a decade. Many were bought over as children, they had no say, and they would be completely lost in Mexico. The US has been their home for so long that it would be cruel to send them to a country that they barely knew. The US should tighten regulations to discourage any more illegal immigrants, but the ones that are already there and have been for a long time should be given citizenship, they have worked, they have paid taxes, they have contributed to society and its Americas fault they are there in the first place because at one time they were just really letting them cross the borders willy nilly. Sure discourage any future illegal immigration by not letting the new ones work, don't let them get drivers licenses and deport any new ones that are caught trying to get in etc...

    5. Taking away abortion rights is just dangerous. Women will just resort to more dangerous measures. Why force a woman to carry an nonviable baby to term just so that it can die minutes or hours after birth? Why risk the mothers health in a dangerous pregnancy that might just end up with both the mother and child dead?

    Ireland still has backwards laws on abortions, and numerous women die each year from high risk pregnancies where they were not allowed to get an abortion.

    Saying all this, Trump does still have some good policies such as enforcing a term limit on congressmen, federal freeze on hiring to lose some employees through attrition, a lifetime ban on white house officials becoming lobbyists for foreign governments, and withdrawing from the TPP.

    • 🎤Author
      2 years ago

      This seems like a fairly well thought out and rational opinion. Its indeed refreshing to see civility on the topic!

      I've seen these arguments not just before but elsewhere in the thread, and a number I even agree with, while others I think are misrepresentations of the truth. However, overall, its a quite well rounded picture.

      Thank you for your contribution.

  • 2 years ago

    The arguments I saw for him/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature.

    Please state one of his positions that are generally logical and well reasoned. Cause as far as I can tell, it's none. When talking about the height of his wall, he even disproved himself in his own logic. There's zero evidence for his xenophobia of immigrants or refugees. Of the more than 750k refugees admitted to the US since 9/11, 3 have been arrested for terrorism related charges, and not a single person has been killed under the guise of terrorism from those 3. There's zero evidence there was ever a plan to get Mexico to pay for a wall. There's zero evidence for the grand majority of the things he said on the campaign trail. Hell, he flip-flopped on his positions 141 times during the campaign...up until July of last year.

    So please, tell us just one of his spectrum of opinions you felt was logical or well reasoned. And then maybe we can show you the error in your ways.

    Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe.

    You mean the situation that's happening in Europe...and not the US? He's creating a problem that doesn't exist, and then is going to take credit for fixing it. This problem exists in Europe because they share a land boarder with the country with the refugee crisis, which is something the US doesn't have. The only way for those refugees to get over here is by plane, which can't happen unless they're allowed access, which can't happen until they go through the appropriate screening for refugees, which is the highest level of vetting the US currently has, which takes on average 2 years to complete. So, please, enlighten us as to how what's happening in Europe has any play in the US when it comes to refugees. If refugees are so terrifying, then why is it twice as likely to be killed by a homegrown white supremacist or antigovernment fanatic than a muslim terrorist?

    Facts suck for Trump.

    ...while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature.

    I don't think you were listening properly. That was what Trump was doing the majority of his campaign. I'm not going to bother citing that, as he's a whiny little bitch, and a quick google will show that he spent more time bitching about people disagreeing with him than actually talking about policy.

    The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved.

    Because people fought against him! The executive order specifically targeted these individuals as well, and it wasn't until the courts took him to task and declared it unconstitutional that it was "solved." I use quotes because there's still people being denied access to the US who should still be allowed to enter, which means it's far from solved.

    What's more, Trump has decided to use alt-facts to say that any disruption in airports this weekend wasn't from his policy, but from a Delta outage....despite disruption starting on Saturday, and the outage being on Sunday.

    In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help.

    We already are. You're talking as if the refugee program doesn't exist, or we don't vet the people who come into the country. We do. Extensively. And we have. This isn't a new problem that requires brand new solutions - it's an old problem we have a pretty good tackle on already, but fuck facts.

    I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal.

    So a wall is both a good idea because it does something, but nothing in particular? That makes zero sense. And the cost is far from minimal - we're talking tens of billions of dollars just to build it, plus a few billion annually to maintain it. And that's not even counting the cost for border guards to patrol it all. Fuck all if Mexico's going to pay for it. That was a shitty campaign promise that Trump has zero authority to uphold, and it's already put relations with Mexico at an all time low. The words "lowest since the Mexican American War" really suck when it's coming from one of our closest trading partners. Really doesn't bode well for the US, especially when we'd need Mexico on board with us if we want to renegotiate NAFTA.

    I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker.

    Citation needed. You feel. That's not proof.

    ...overall trade between the three NAFTA partners — the U.S., Canada and Mexico — has increased sharply over the pact’s history, from roughly $290 billion in 1993 to more than $1.1 trillion in 2016. Cross-border investment has also surged during those years, as the stock of U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico rose from $15 billion to more than $107.8 billion in 2014. As for job growth, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, six million U.S. jobs depend on U.S. trade with Mexico, a flow that has been greatly facilitated by NAFTA, which has helped eliminate costly tariff and non-tariff barriers.

    Now that's getting towards some level of proof. Free trade minimizes costs for the average american, which means things cost less, which means that the average american can buy more things. This has only improved since NAFTA was signed.

    Or we could get rid of such trade deals, implement tariffs, and then pass that cost off to the average American. I'm sure that'll bring back the autoworker jobs, despite those being in a decline since before NAFTA (because of the low quality of american cars compared to foreign competition...something that still holds up today), or the factory jobs that have been replaced by automation over the last few decades.

    As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations.

    This isn't 1946. The US can't just act unilaterally. We need allies, and international partners. Trump is already hurting our ties with our closest allies. There's a petition with over a million signatures in the UK asking the government to not allow Trump into the country. We're reliant on the UK (and other countries) to get things done internationally, either through military means, or politically through the UN. We're fighting against Russia and China on many different fronts, in terms of trade and influence, and not necessarily through open military might. Trump puts that at risk. Not only that, but Trump just this weekend removed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence from the Security Counsel, and instead puts his head of propaganda senior adviser (yes, I'm biased against Trump), Bannon, as a permanent member.

    I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars.

    Really? Despite him claiming numerous times otherwise on the campaign trail? He wants to go to war with ISIS. Period.

    but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person.

    So berating a gold star family for a solid two weeks for speaking out against him isn't cruel or vindictive? How about how he'll jump at any opportunity to talk poorly about his detractors (not citing because it's so rampant, just google). Or Rosie O'donnel (http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/politics/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud/). Or Megyn Kelly? Did you even listen to the guy? The majority of what he said was bitching about people who talked poorly about him. He's nothing but cruel or vindictive.

    Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot.

    You're openly supporting Trump. With his track record, and his lack of any sort of care about actual facts, are you really surprised? Can you point to a single major stance of his that isn't xenophobic (and that's a best case scenario), or actually supported by facts? So far he's all bluster, a total dick (which I get why people like that sort of thing), and a whiny little bitch whenever someone doesn't sing his praises. That's been his M.O. since he announced his presidency, and it has no signs of changing.

    So please, enlighten us as to why this guy isn't total scum.

    • 2 years ago

      I'm from planet xebes , I see humans are ruining their own environment (in so far as it is habitable by them, the planet will be fine) , they know it too . Yet , a new leader of the most powerful portion of the planet called a "country" seems to want to reverse course and race faster towards irreversible damage by doing things known by your learned ones to exacerbate the problem. He claims it something about energy independence and jobs .

      It all seems very silly to me . what a waste . Would have loved to met humans .

      • 2 years ago

        I don't think this will change your view on the Donald, but I just wanted to share my view. From the perspective of an outsider, one who is to some degree out of touch with American societal views (I'm Australian). Trump is a complete and utter embarrassment to America. His character is something inexcusable for some one who is the icon, the head, lead representative of the US, and as a result, myself, many I know, and from what is presented in the media and community - it has become clear that Australians have lost most, and if not all of its respect and aww it had for America. Your choice of leader entertains us and it surprises me that once upon a time I looked at the US as a cool country. Now the persona it holds in the views of Australians, and I'm sure many more around the globe is one of "the country is doing well because of a few good apples, but mostly its a shit storm of ignorant rednecks and stupid yet educated (to American standards... so not that great for the majority) people, and we (Australians) should just let them suffer for their choice. Don't get me wrong, Trump has screwed your name as a global leader, but in my eyes, he has played the American people and by describing you lot as a gathering of dumb nuts, I am praising trump. In easier terms, in the eyes of Australians, the majority of American voters and those of your electoral college (resulting in trumps win) are to a far greater degree idiots, over what trump is.

        • 🎤Author
          2 years ago

          Its okay, I have a similar view of Australia :P

          Very cool animals, had Australian exchange students at my school who were all cool and Australian friends online who were the same, but what I've heard about your government has been almost all negative.

      • 2 years ago

        In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker.

        What America should be doing is making American workers more competitive in the international marketplace. That's the long term solution if the US wants to remain a superpower. Donald Trump's strategy is to stop anyone with cheaper or higher quality goods from being able to sell products in the US. It's a short term solution that relies on America's fear rather than it's optimism.

        One way of doing that is to make American employees more skilled. For example, the US has the money to invest in teaching everyone how to code. Coding is to 2017 as literacy was to 1817. At that time, most Americans were farmers and the jobs that people do now didn't even exist then. Even the most menial service job today requires people to know how to read and do basic math. Coding would represent the same type of growth.

        Another way to make American employees better is to encourage Americans to go abroad. In the US, a person who can read, write, and do basic math at the high school level is qualified for only menial jobs. But they are more skilled that hundreds of millions of people abroad. They are competing for the same jobs as people who are illiterate. What Americans should be doing is going abroad to start their own businesses and hiring those unskilled workers to do basic things for them. Instead of becoming capitalists, they are trying to compete as labor despite being significantly overqualified.

        Donald Trump is trying to preserve an old way of life even though the conditions that made it possible doesn't exist anymore. The 1950's US was successful because factories were brand new developments, and there was no competition from Europe, which was razed to the ground during WWII, or the rest of the world, which was limited due to colonialism. Today, Europe is highly developed, and the fastest growing economies in the world are India and China.

        Donald Trump's strategy only works if the US is willing to only trade with the US. The problem with this is that the US's growth rate is much slower than other countries. You can't sell cars to Americans who already own cars. You can sell them to Indians and Chinese people who have never owned a car before. If you cut out buying products from abroad, you also make it difficult to sell abroad too.

        If the US is the only large economy in the world, then Trump's strategy works. The problem is that soon the US won't be the only large economy. All the cool stuff Americans love like big militaries, missions to the moon, entitlement programs, etc. all rely on massive economic growth. If the US has less money in the long term, which every economist from liberals like Paul Krugman to conservatives like Milton Friedman predict will happen if the US shifts away from free trade, it won't be able to afford everything that makes America great.

        In short, Trump is prioritizing short term rewards over long term growth. It's the economic equivalent of eating pizza and drinking beer instead of going to the gym and lifting weights. It'll make people happy in the short term, but also make them fat and weak in the long term.

        India, China, and the rest of the world are getting more and more rich and powerful every day. There are simply too many people there for it not to happen. If the US refuses to invest in emerging markets today, it will get bowled over in the future. And as those countries become the largest economies in the world, they will have the cash and clout to become the most powerful countries in the world too.

        • 2 years ago

          I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws.

           

          If Trump had literally any other role in society, sure, look past his flaws.  But he’s not just some joe-schmoe, he’s the fucking president of our country.  You’re letting his worst flaws represent you and your country, so I don’t think those flaws should be so casually forgiven, nor do I think your respect should be so easily handed over to him.  Come on, you’re better than that and America is better than that.

           

          Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe.

           

          You are admitting that you think this policy will be ineffectual, but you admire that he is showing “commitment”.  Both you and our country deserve better than ineffectual commitments. 

           

          The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved.

           

          Again, you seem to recognize here that Trump fucked up.  Why is that so easy for you to shrug off? 

           

          I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal.

           

          Again, you are praising Trump for proposing an ineffective solution to a problem.  He’s our president, feel free to hold him to a higher standard!

           

          I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. 

           

          Even if you have the knowledge of global economics to support your claim that free trade deals are a problem, you just admitted that Trump doesn’t have you convinced that he can do anything about it.  Why support him then?

           

          As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk.

           

          Here, you are basically bragging that Trump’s embarrassing buffoonery is okay because it won’t end up triggering World War III.  Why are your standards so insanely low?! 

           

          Finally, in terms of his provocative actions/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person.

           

          So as long as a candidate isn’t a complete fucking psychopath, you are okay with them  

           

          If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.

          I hope I wasn't too un-civil, but honestly I will never understand Trump supporters.  Even if you set aside all of his policies (which is a HUGE set-aside, by the way, his policies scare the shit out of me!), there is still the fact that our country is now represented by a fat orange retard.  Did you ever learn about past Presidents in grade school?  Do you remember anything about Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, or hell, even Ronald Reagan?  You really think Trump is worthy of standing next to them and upholding their legacy?  As a conservative, you could have gone with literally any other fucking candidate and I would have at least respected them as my president, but not Trump.  

          • 2 years ago

            In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US.

            They were given visas by the government, so there is some reasonable expectations to be allowed to enter.

            but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help.

            How is it being smart when you explicitly say no to everyone except for this specific religion (christians)? Why is automatically helping christains are automatically smart and not everyone else?

            However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal.

            The big danger is that the wall revenue source will continue after the wall is paid and the plan is that Americans will first pay for it.

            As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations.

            Right now it looks like we are headed to a trade war with China and Mexico would raise the price of goods in the US. So higher prices at Walmart will just hurt Americans.

            • 2 years ago

              To address this point in particular

              In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker.

              Free trade is a net job creator, and the jobs it creates don't require any government assistance. The protectionist fiscal policy that props up non-competitive businesses drives up the cost of goods, which affects not only consumers but employers. The cost of goods influences the operating costs of businesses, which affects both their ability to hire and how much they can pay their employees. It affects the amount of capital people have to start and invest in businesses. And on top of that, protectionist fiscal policy punishes every American business that creates the goods we trade on an international free market. Trump's fiscal policy not only rewards inefficiency, it's essentially the broken window fallacy on a national scale. It ignores that the money consumers spend to prop up certain businesses has opportunity cost.

              • 2 years ago

                In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the bunfight cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot...

                Allow me to add one more to that list: Blind.

                You say you didn't hear any arguments against him that weren't fallacious or otherwise invalid. So you somehow managed to miss testimony from Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, virtually every Democrat politician with a mic in front of their face, every Republican candidate who debated him in the primaries, the dozens of Republican politicians who came out against him afterwards (including 50 vastly experienced conservative foreign policy experts.

                Somehow you've decided it's the case that the almost universal opprobrium heaped upon Trump by your country's print press (including those organs who never gave endorsements in previous elections), the identical levels of scorn poured upon Trump by press outside of the USA (excepting those from Russia and ISIS territories), all relied upon unthinking ad hominem invective.

                As was the attitude of America's scientists, industrial leaders, technology sector, educators, software engineers, civil engineers and economists.

                You saw all these arguments against Trump's various positions and (purported) policies and thought, "Nah, all these are are insults and crappy logic."

                Meanwhile in Trump's favour, he managed to attract a total of TWO newspapers to endorse his candidacy - both of which happened to be owned by a stooge. Of the various groups of businesspeople, scientists, educators, etc etc who actually do support Trump, there is no sign at all - or at least there wasn't during the election, when their peers were making their frequent, voluminous and impassioned arguments against the guy. Even Trump's own fucking staff (allegedly) don't want none.

                Blind actually doesn't begin to cover it. You either decided to vote for Trump based on absolutely nothing, or are simply a peddler of bulshytt. Either way, your submission here is a mockery of what this sub is supposed to be about.

                Shame.

                • 2 years ago

                  The arguments I saw for him/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature.

                  Sorry, I call bullshit. Where were you looking for arguments against him, apart from the Reddit comments section? Did you listen to Barack Obama? Michelle Obama? Joe Biden? Bernie Sanders? Almost every newspaper editorial board in the country?

                  Also, ad hominem attacks are important when somebody's running for a job that requires strength of character and the candidate has none. For example, Trump's forthcoming efforts to de-fund the Office for Violence Against Women can be directly traced to his own history as a sexual predator. His unprecedented attempts to stifle the public voices of government scientists can be directly traced to his unwillingness to accept information he doesn't like and desire to mislead everyone else. And his dishonesty, which is without question by far the worst of any politician in our history, underpins practically everything he does.

                  Most importantly: He is a goddamned idiot. A rational person cannot watch him speak for thirty seconds and conclude anything otherwise. That's not just a random personal attack, because the intelligence of the President is incredibly important to his ability to digest complex information and make well-informed decisions. Donald Trump cannot do that. Everyone who has ever worked with or gotten to know Donald Trump says he cannot do that. He is self-absorbed to the point that it is a severe mental illness. He will fervently deny obvious facts despite all the evidence and the opinion of every qualified expert in the world, all because they don't support his preferred narrative about himself being the greatest human ever to live. He doesn't care what's real or true. That IS a policy issue -- in fact, it is EVERY policy issue. His stupidity is a personal quality that leads to terrible policy decisions on every single issue.

                  You might not think he's cruel (although if you don't think he's vindictive you clearly know nothing about his life -- he belongs next to 'vindictive' in the dictionary) but you have to realize he's incredibly stupid. He has never said an intelligent thing in his entire public life. How is that not a deal-breaker?

                  • 2 years ago

                    As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations.

                    I'd point you directly at this to explain the issues with his foreign policy.

                    As someone who works in politics, let me explain why the western world leaders are freaking the fuck out right now.

                    Once there was WW2. The allies won and said: lets never ever have deal with this shit again. We should have a peaceful forum where we discuss and resolve our differences. Thus the UN was formed. We should also make it easier to trade with each other. In the longer run all countries will benefit (economics 101) and if we trade we will have stronger incentives to be friends. Thus EU, and modern trade agreements where born. Lastly, we should all sign up for some bacis human rights. Because back then the link between disregard for human rights and the ultimate conclusion in the holocaust was apparent. So we created the international declaration of human rights, and things like the geneva convention.

                    Trump has attacked the UN, free trade and human rights. Does Donald Trump want to start world war III? Probably not. Is he removing all the safety blocks that our anscestors put in place 70 years ago to prevent it from happening? Absolutely.

                    • 2 years ago

                      First of all, you didn't really say much in favor of Trump. Your primary arguments are mostly that he isn't that bad.

                      from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal.

                      Senator Mitch McConnell, the senate majority leader, has estimated it will cost $12-15 billion dollars, and that's probably a low estimate.

                      In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere.

                      Things can be done cheaper in the U.S. too, just with high-tech manufacturing with few workers. That's the way things are moving anyway. If manufacturing comes back to the U.S. it won't bring back the manufacturing jobs the U.S. had 20-30 years ago.

                      Besides, putting up trade barriers and tariffs will lead other countries to do the same. Take Mexico. The U.S. exports $236 billion in goods to Mexico. That is put in jeopardy if a trade war ensues. Prices of goods in the U.S. go up due to the tariffs. Supply chains are disrupted. Things are messed up bigly.

                      As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations.

                      China is on the rise economically, and is one of the countries that is best positioned to take care of an isolationist United States. The U.S. is not going to be "ignored," but the role of the U.S. as the clearly most powerful nation in the world is not assured.

                      • 2 years ago

                        However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal.

                        I can't imagine where you're coming from on this one. Probably the one consistent thing I've heard about the wall is how expensive it will be. From his executive order on the wall,

                        The executive orders Trump signed Wednesday call for boosting the ranks of Border Patrol forces by an additional 5,000 agents as well as for 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to carry out deportations.

                        Not even taking the construction of a wall into consideration, that's 15,000 new full time employees. The average salary of a Border Patrol Officer last year was about $80,000. Fifteen-thousand people being paid an average annual salary of eighty-thousand dollars will cost American taxpayers $1.2 billion dollars every year.

                        And that's just the costs of employing people! No construction whatsoever. That doesn't even represent the cost of hiring construction workers. So where you get the idea that this will be anything short of hugely expensive, I don't know.


                        Other than that, if you see Trump and aren't repulsed by how sleazy and awful he is then I don't think I can change that. This slew of executive orders is emblematic of his anti-democratic style. They were unilateral rather than deliberative. They went through zero legal review process. All this bullshit with green cards could have been solved beforehand if Trump had even the slightest respect for the opinion of others. You can go on and on with this guy. He openly advocates for torture. He wants to turn the country into a nation of torturers.

                        I don't think he should be impeached in his first weeks, but it's going to happen the way he's heading.

                        • 2 years ago

                          Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help.

                          If it doesn't work, and it introduces harm in some way, then there's no reason to do it and any number of reasons not to. Logically it's not something to support. Had the ban been in place in 2000, we would still have experienced every single act of terrorism domestically.

                          Furthermore, by denying entry to people, Trump has encouraged radicalism, specifically in areas already marked as likely to produce radicals.

                          Entitlement has nothing to do with it. The ban will do no good whatsoever.

                          I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal.

                          The cost will not be minimal. 50 billion or more. The vast majority of the border is in the wilderness, and building a wall will require a massive infrastructure budget just to get the equipment in place. Ironically, this means creating roads, which will help facilitate travel back to civilization for anyone that climbs over the wall with a ladder.

                          Not only will it not stop much illegal immigration, it will encourage more. Tough border controls always do. (This has happened before, with both Reagan and Bush.) Those currently in the country on valid visas that expire are less likely to leave if they feel they will not be able to get back in.

                          So the wall will be expensive and ineffective. There's no reason to support that.

                          In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker.

                          Free trade hurts American industry in very specific ways, depending on the trade deal. But it's a net benefit. Some people are hurt, but you've actually already indicated that you're OK with some people being inconvenienced if it's for the greater good.

                          But no one actually has to be. You can have free trade and working Americans, by using government resources to train displaced workers with new career skills, temporarily subsidizing their employment, or contributing to an earlier retirement for people that we're nearing that age. But the US has never done that, so American workers just get screwed. It doesn't have to be that way. And it's worth it, free trade helps everyone's economy grow.

                          As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk.

                          This is kind of a dangerous view to have. It's exactly this kind of thinking that lead to the terror attacks in 2001. "We're America, what are you gonna do about it?"

                          Our modern enemies don't play by the same rules. It's hard to defeat a guerrilla army and that's exactly who we've been fighting since 2001. Now 16 years later and we're further from a stable situation in the middle East than we've ever been.

                          Going around the planet and demanding that everyone work with the US because "you'll resist? With what army?" Is a great way to generate even more guerrilla enemies. That's why the first attempt is always trade. "We'll give you greater access to the US economy of you give us some of that cool stuff you have for cheap." Sooner or later our trading partners will realize that access to the US economy isn't with the price of admission. And we'll lose access to that cool shit they have. And invading a sovereign nation for resources hasn't gone over well for the better part of a century with the international community.

                          Finally, in terms of his provocative actions/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person.

                          How about the fact that he still insists that the central park five should be executed? Years after all of them have been exonerated? Or the constant theft of labor and violation of contacts?

                          If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.

                          • 2 years ago

                            In no particular order:

                            1) He is making it much easier to sell of national park lands. This cannot be undone.

                            2) Gag order on all things climate change. Will pull out of Paris climate accord.

                            3) Sexual assault allegations/bragging.

                            4) Muslim ban will make it easier for ISIS to recruit/may instigate home-grown terrorism.

                            5) Possible return to dark days before ACA where people with pre-existing conditions couldn't get insured.

                            6) Anti-abortion Supreme Court justice coming our way.

                            7) He is keeping his businesses, creating a huge entanglement of conflicts of interest.

                            8) He has never released his tax returns, and one that was leaked to the New York Times showed him claiming close to a billion dollars in losses.

                            9) He is planning to publish a list of immigrant crime statistics, a move that is actually reminiscent Nazi propaganda against Jews.

                            10) He consistently refuses to take criticism or self reflect, and makes so many contradictory/outright false statements that people don't know what to believe anymore, causing them to retreat from fact and reason.

                            The main thing Trump has done is to spread fear. Women are afraid that their reproductive rights will be taken away. Latinos, Muslims and other minorities are afraid of cultural backlash and violence. Many are afraid of his bellicose comportment in foreign affairs--"I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk" is pure speculation. I don't feel comfortable with the logic of "well he won't actually do anything that bad when it comes down to it." I don't remember a time when people were this outright fearful without a legitimate foreign threat. It seems that his supporters are reveling in the fear and want "libtards" to feel this way.

                            • 2 years ago

                              First off I'd like to say that I respect the fact that you are willing to have this conversation. There are many that aren't. As someone who is having their own problems with the American left, I can sympathize with your own issues this election cycle. The progressive movement on the left has honestly been a huge problem to having decent conversations.

                              I'll start with the immigration issue. First I'd like to point out that first and foremost there was never the exact same possibility of the migrant issue in Europe in the US. The US is separated by an ocean. Any means of transporting them here would have been incredibly controlled, so there was never the risk of an unmitigated rush, and on top of that, the US has one of the most stringent refugee screening programs in the world. It is harder to come here as a refugee than it is as a normal immigrant. And as a normal immigrant from the areas that are deemed security risks, it is incredibly hard. So when it comes down to it the US doesn't have as much risk from migrants as Trump likes to portray. That shouldn't be seen as a risk of downplaying other risks, but the refugee crisis just isn't the same in the US as it has been in Europe.

                              Next I'll hit your point on the wall. I don't know if you have just taken Trump's 12 billion estimate for granted, or where you have gotten your numbers, but even conservitave papers like The Hill put it at higher. In fact the construction costs are estimated to be as High as $285 billion due to the building along fault line areas, and that isn't even counting maintenance costs, economic costs, environmental costs etc. And the problem is that's to stop the minority of illegal immigrants. Really it's a cost of a huge ammount for almost nothing in return, and bad will from one of our largest trading partners.

                              Next we can go into free trade a bit. Lets be honest, yes there is a bit of economic impact to free trade temporarily. The thing is, we actually bring back as many jobs as we deport, and we also tend to bring in higher paying jobs. On top of that we also get way more benefits from lower prices, and other things. Basically we benefit more than we pay. But there is a cost of low wage, low education workers. That really can't be denied. But also note, its more a problem with automation anymore than globalization that is taking these jobs. So in other words, these jobs were doomed for other reasons.

                              Now we get to the US Foreign policy. First off foreign policy is incredibly delicate. None of these are 1:1 relationships, and our relationships with any given country are incredibly dependent on our and there relationships with other countries. Trump seems to have little understanding of this. The way he talks shows this, especially with our most complex relations, those of China and Russia. First off we have to realize we have almost no economic relationship with Russia. Their whole economy is smaller than that of California. Politically the only reason they are relivant any more is the millitary actions they take, their nuclear arsonal, and their seat on the security council. China on the other hand is not only our largest trading partner (and the second largest economy in the world), but also one of our largest millitary threats especially with the issues in the South China Sea at the moment. And with the comments Trump has already made, China is already predicting trade wars (at a minimum with the US). On top of that our NATO allies, had to basically embarrass Trump into admitting support for our most vital group of allies.

                              Now as for his war stance... Well thats a bit complex. Not only has he stated hes anti war, but he's also suggested carpet bombing places, suggested war crimes, suggested nuclear proliferation. Honestly he's suggesting everything we have built our modern global infrastructure trying to prevent. So no he's not anti war; he just has no clue what he's talking about. On top of that he's removed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the National Intelligence director from the National Security Council and replaced them with Steve Bannon. Honestly by those actions alone that he has made us less safe.

                              Next comes his "Un-PC" ness. Honestly I have my problems with political correctness, but Trump has long ago crossed from not PC to actually incredibly harmful to our Nation, and actually pretty sexist, and xenophobic. And yes thats even considering how some statements have been twisted. Hes the president now, and his habit of "foot in the mouth" speech could honestly cost lives. His willingness to denigrate our intelligence agencies has cost us in actual intelligence capability, where people wont work with us, and on top of that, he constantly lies. Not like every once in a while. Constantly. In the first press conference his press secretary made 5 insertions. 4 of them were lies. During his CIA speech, he constantly lied, while being in front of the wall of heros. Basically it's already gotten to the point that many americans look at him, and ask. Can we believe a thing this man says?