Audie
Veteran Member
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.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump supporters don't seem very bright to me. Gullible would be the word.
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.
Those are not ideals, or policies,
Other than the anti scientific, I dont see those as other than
"trumped" up by his opponents.
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.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.
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.
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.
Hard to disagree with you there, at least.I sure wish Trump would just kind of go away.
Hard to disagree with you there, at least.
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.I sure wish Trump would just kind of go away.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
If I may just chime in on this one question...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?
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.
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: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?
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.
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?
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.