"My great and unmatched wisdom..."

[Audie]

Trump supporters don't seem very bright to me. Gullible would be the word.

Some are, some are not. Here is an obama supporter.
She may not be very bright. Others are.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yeah, you did switch.

I am no trump apologist. But I do live in the
USA at present, and feel you are mischaracterizing
a lot of people.

It was "policies"now it is "ideals" Sort of the same i guess.

What policies or ideals do you feel are immoral?

If you think my stance switched at all, then either there was miscommunication or you misread my points. Either way, I believe the ideals that someone upholds can say a lot about their moral character and prejudice. It's not an either-or situation.

Regarding your question, some of the immoral ideals (which naturally inspire at least some policies) supported by Trump and/or many among his base are xenophobia, racism, homophobia, sexism, and anti-scientific attitudes (mainly denial of climate change).

On a side note, I find it absurd to assume that one needs to live in a country to form an opinion about it or about a specific subset of its voter base. This is like saying you can't oppose Saudi monarchism or point out the rampant fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia without living there.

Sure, living anywhere can give a deeper perspective, but if you make that a requirement to form a solid opinion about other countries at all, you might as well forget about having any opinions on world politics save for a few countries at most.

 

[Audie]

If you think my stance switched at all, then either there was miscommunication or you misread my points. Either way, I believe the ideals that someone upholds can say a lot about their moral character and prejudice. It's not an either-or situation.

Regarding your question, some of the immoral ideals (which naturally inspire at least some policies) supported by Trump and/or many among his base are xenophobia, racism, homophobia, sexism, and anti-scientific attitudes (mainly denial of climate change).

On a side note, I find it absurd to assume that one needs to live in a country to form an opinion about it or about a specific subset of its voter base. This is like saying you can't oppose Saudi monarchism or point out the rampant fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia without living there.

Sure, living anywhere can give a deeper perspective, but if you make that a requirement to form a solid opinion about other countries at all, you might as well forget about having any opinions on world politics save for a few countries at most.

Ok a little bit of meat in there.
xenophobia, racism, homophobia, sexism, and anti-scientific attitudes

Those are not ideals, or policies,

Other than the anti scientific, I dont see those as other than
"trumped" up by his opponents.
I am neither white nor male but I cant seem to detect
any climate of hostility to my presence.

What would be an example of "homophobia"?

As for the xeno stuff, I am an immigrant, so I can
hardly object to immigration as such.

As far as I know, every country on earth seeks
to control who comes in and whether they can
stay.

The USA also has immigration laws, that are flouted
wholesale by those who can get to the border.

Those who cannot, like some of my relatives in China,
can wait year after years for their place in line. Even longer
now that the INS is so up to its neck in illegal border
crossers and asylum seekers.

A rational and regulated policy on immigration
would make a lot of sense.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Those are not ideals, or policies,

I feel like you either keep misreading what I'm saying or you're focusing on semantic superficiality instead of actual substance.

Whether or not that's intentional is something I don't know, nor am I really interested in knowing.

Other than the anti scientific, I dont see those as other than
"trumped" up by his opponents.

There we go. At least I now know for sure that any further discussion about this with you would be futile. I see no point in discussion with someone if their arguments don't have a basic level of realism. What I'm seeing here instead is quasi-"fair" apologetics, despite your proclamation that it isn't so.

Have a nice day.

 

[Ouroboros]

The great deal maker keeps on showing how good he is in deal breaking.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nah. It is stuff like that which define TDS.
"Done (that kind of thing) before" is plainly enough
the meaning.

Not that Trump isn't full of himself!

Sure, a fake diagnosis of a disorder of a syndrome that doesn't exist to dismiss observations that Trump's grasp on facts and reality is slipping, because apparently he did destroy turkeys economy before.

 

[Audie]

Sure, a fake diagnosis of a disorder of a syndrome that doesn't exist to dismiss observations that Trump's grasp on facts and reality is slipping, because apparently he did destroy turkeys economy before.

Who knows. I took it to mean he had a demonstrated
ability to wreck an economy. And Turkey, you could be next.



Kind of like this...ok jap you are next ww2 poster - Google Search:


Of course he has not destroyed anyone's economy so
it hardly matters if he meant Turkey or not

I sure wish Trump would just kind of go away.

 

[Augustus]

I do find that your argument overcomplicates something that perhaps we can't afford to hesitate about anymore. While the idea that most people are good and rational or have "perfectly normal reasons" to agree with the ideology of an abusive bigot may be appealing and potentially convenient for moral relativism that gives too much room for immoral stances as "differing opinions," I believe it simply avoids a core problem of our times instead of tackling the actual causes behind it no matter how unpleasant they may be.

At least some Americans support him because they believe he stands for a strong economy, an 'America first' foreign policy, reduced immigration, etc.'

These are perfectly reasonable issues for people to support, and while there is certainly room for disagreement, it doesn't require 'delusion' or 'ignorance' to believe he has been at least relatively successful in regards (some of) these.

No doubt there are at least some Americans who believe he is an awful man, but has delivered reasonably well on several things they care about, and that they care more about these things than his personal failings.

Don't you think a reasonable person could arrive at the opinion they care more about issues that affect them than they do about the personality of the President?

Unambiguously rejecting the principles of someone like Trump and his most avid supporters doesn't help him; trying to treat them as rational people instead of shoring up public support and awareness to combat their political effects is what helps him.

I'm of the opinion that when you tell someone who supports Trump because of the economy that they are an ignorant, morally bankrupt racist you are definitely helping him.

"If you don't agree with me then there's something wrong with you" tends to grate on many people and make them not want to align with your 'side'. With tribal 2 party politics, making them hate your side is the same as helping them like the other.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I sure wish Trump would just kind of go away.

Hard to disagree with you there, at least.

 

[Audie]

Hard to disagree with you there, at least.

Of course we agree; we are pals.

 

[Ouroboros]

I sure wish Trump would just kind of go away.

I share that sentiment. I feel we're a bit of an embarrassment to the world. It's a kindergarten version of Lord of the Flies, and a man-baby in the lead role.

 

[Debater Slayer]

At least some Americans support him because they believe he stands for a strong economy, an 'America first' foreign policy, reduced immigration, etc.'

These are perfectly reasonable issues for people to support, and while there is certainly room for disagreement, it doesn't require 'delusion' or 'ignorance' to believe he has been at least relatively successful in regards (some of) these.

No doubt there are at least some Americans who believe he is an awful man, but has delivered reasonably well on several things they care about, and that they care more about these things than his personal failings.

Don't you think a reasonable person could arrive at the opinion they care more about issues that affect them than they do about the personality of the President?

It's not just the personality of the president that is the problem; his actions and words can go a long way toward directly or indirectly causing harm to someone. We're talking about the leader of the world's most powerful country, not some celebrity with a few unpleasant personal quirks.

That aside, since Trump's economic views and pro-corporate attitude are evidenced to be harmful for the average working-class person, then supporting him on the basis of standing for a strong economy is mistaken. Yet again, it would be the result of ignorance or an irrational evaluation of the effects of his economic beliefs.

I'm of the opinion that when you tell someone who supports Trump because of the economy that they are an ignorant, morally bankrupt racist you are definitely helping him.

"If you don't agree with me then there's something wrong with you" tends to grate on many people and make them not want to align with your 'side'. With tribal 2 party politics, making them hate your side is the same as helping them like the other.

Supporting elective abortion, same-sex marriage, and more reasonable gun regulations also tends to grate on Trump's loyal base. That doesn't say much about the validity of these positions, though; whether one values the feelings of a demonstrably prejudiced and irrational subset of voters more than factual accuracy is up to one to decide. Personally, I don't think there are many ways to be solidly pro-human rights and at the same time not upset Trump's ardent supporters, so I know which side to pick.

Also, being ignorant doesn't necessarily entail being morally bankrupt or a racist. I specified that supporting him could be a result of one or more of these factors. I also explained in this post why supporting him on economic grounds is indeed still an indication of ignorance.

I can imagine that the likes of Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela may have faced opposition due to being "tribal" or saying there was "something wrong" with their critics, but here's the thing: mollycoddling and half-hearted support for fundamentally important causes doesn't tend to cause much in the way of desirable change. Only the people who are willing to be uncompromising and not handle blatant bigotry with kid gloves are the ones who tend to inspire and influence much-needed positive changes.

 

[Augustus]

It's not just the personality of the president that is the problem; his actions and words can go a long way to directly or indirectly cause harm to someone. We're talking about the leader of the world's most powerful country, not some celebrity with a few unpleasant personal quirks.

For a hypothetical American:

Candidate A uses bigoted language in speeches, but I'm struggling to make ends meet and think he'll help the economy so I can provide better for my kids
Candidate B is well versed in inclusive, intersectional ideology and says all the right things but I don't trust her on the economy [for whatever justifiable reason] and worry for my family's financial health

You don't think a reasonable, moral person could vote for candidate A and continue to support them if they believed they had indeed helped the economy?

It's just a subjective value judgement as to which one is more important.

That aside, since Trump's economic views and pro-corporate attitude are evidenced to be harmful for the average working-class person, then supporting him on the basis of standing for a strong economy is mistaken. Yet again, it would be the result of ignorance or an irrational evaluation of the effects of his economic beliefs.

Most people don't think in terms of some hypothetical average person, they think "what's in it for me?".

People can legitimately vote for someone because their economic policies are perceived to benefit this individual and their family.

If you own a small business and are struggling to get by and believe tax cuts and less regulation will help, this doesn't make you ignorant and neither does supporting the politician who you subjectively judge as having more chance to deliver this.

I can imagine that the likes of Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela may have faced opposition due to being "tribal" or saying there was "something wrong" with their critics, but here's the thing: mollycoddling and half-hearted support for fundamentally important causes doesn't tend to cause much in the way of desirable change. Only the people who are willing to be uncompromising and not handle blatant bigotry with kid gloves are the ones who tend to inspire and influence much-needed positive changes.

MLK was actually pretty much the exact opposite if the modern, tribal, identity based politics. He understood that he needed to persuade those who opposed him, and rhetorically left the door open for them to join.

In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone...

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with a new meaning, “My country, ‘tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.”

MLK appealed to shared values and a (Christian) idea of a shared humanity. He gave positive reasons to join, and erected no obstacles.

If you say "I'm of the opinion that being a genuine Trump supporter at this juncture indicates deep irrationality, ignorance, bigotry, or moral bankruptcy--and often a combination of more than one of these factors." you create a great psychological impediment for moderate Trump voters to agree with you. They have to a) be willing to overlook the fact that they are being patronised b) be willing to accept they are at best 'ignorant', or at worst a 'deeply irrational, ignorant, morally bankrupt bigot' c) be willing to overlook the self-righteous and supercilious grandstanding of the other side.

Inviting someone to believe the same thing you do is very different from demanding they agree with you or be condemned for their failings, and there is plenty of science to back this up (as well as the experience of any persuasive industry).

[I despise Trump but still find a reasonable proportion of anti-Trump talking points in insufferably bad-faith]

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Candidate A uses bigoted language in speeches, but I'm struggling to make ends meet and think he'll help the economy so I can provide better for my kids
Candidate B is well versed in inclusive, intersectional ideology and says all the right things but I don't trust her on the economy [for whatever justifiable reason] and worry for my family's financial health

You don't think a reasonable, moral person could vote for candidate A and continue to support them if they believed they had indeed helped the economy?

If I may just chime in on this one question...

The answer is plainly no.

No reasonable, sensible, and certainly not moral person would vote for someone they identified as a bigot. What sensible, moral person would say "This person is a bigot, but I think they can benefit me financially, so I will assist in putting them into the highest office of power in the world"??

Surely that's not a moral person.

 

[Ouroboros]

So relating to Trump's suspicious business in Turkey, shouldn't Pence now step up and make a secret call to Erdogan and "ask" him to investigate Trump? We want to clean out any improprieties and possible corruption by state officials, especially those running for election. Or maybe Trump can do it himself?

 

[Augustus]

The answer is plainly no.

No reasonable, sensible, and certainly not moral person would vote for someone they identified as a bigot. What sensible, moral person would say "This person is a bigot, but I think they can benefit me financially, so I will assist in putting them into the highest office of power in the world"??

Surely that's not a moral person.

Surely there must be a crossover point at where b) becomes more morally important than a)

a) Says bigoted things
b) Will improve the economy to the benefit of your family/the nation

If given the choice between:

a) President who says bigoted things but will raise 100,000 children out of poverty via a strong economy
b) President who is very PC, but won't raise 100,000 children out of poverty due to poor economic policy

why is voting for b) more moral?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Surely there must be a crossover point at where b) becomes more morally important than a)

a) Says bigoted things
b) Will improve the economy to the benefit of your family/the nation

If given the choice between:

a) President who says bigoted things but will raise 100,000 children out of poverty via a strong economy
b) President who is very PC, but won't raise 100,000 children out of poverty due to poor economic policy

why is voting for b) more moral?

Because A is a bigot and will naturally enact laws based on bigotry, and most likely any benefit of their office will only be derived from a detriment to other people. The dichotomy is more like:

a) A President who is a bigot, but will raise 100,000 children out of poverty at the expense of 100,000 minority children who they will disadvantage or likely enact discriminatory legislation against.
b) A President who isn't a bigot, and doesn't do that.

Now, a cold, unfeeling machine might say "Well, the people who will suffer won't be me or my family, and I will likely benefit, so I will choose option a", but a moral person would categorically reject option a, and should do this every time.

That's not even up for debate. The moral option is never to side with putting a bigot into power regardless of what personal benefit you may derive from it, because said benefit WILL ALWAYS COME AT A COST TO OTHERS. It seems absurd to me to suggest it can ever be moral.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

While hyperbole, this does actually relate to US policy re: tariffs on economic restrictions on Turkey that (perhaps) helped contribute to currency/debt crisis 2018.

It's obviously just a response to criticisms for abandoning US' Kurdish partners to Turkey and isn't unreasonable on its own.

At best it's in bad taste. Thousands will die, and whilst I'm not trying to attribute that to Trump pulling US troops out, it doesn't seem the time for self-aggrandizement/Twitter jokes.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Surely there must be a crossover point at where b) becomes more morally important than a)

a) Says bigoted things
b) Will improve the economy to the benefit of your family/the nation

If given the choice between:

a) President who says bigoted things but will raise 100,000 children out of poverty via a strong economy
b) President who is very PC, but won't raise 100,000 children out of poverty due to poor economic policy

why is voting for b) more moral?

You seem to be begging the question a little here.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have the feeling that EVERYBODY gets the verbal irony. Except those who already hate him and are absolutely determined to take it literally. His political opponents, who know that it was verbal irony and don't care.

It's not a binary world. It's quite possible to see this as being in bad taste, and to think he's demeaning the importance both of the decision he's made and the post he has held through it.
This doesn't require hating him, nor being a 'political opponent's.