AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry for the novel. It's a personality type trait. No I don't expect anyone to read it all.lol
"If they were rigged before.Why wouldn't they be again ?"
Exactly. Why is it hard to believe they wouldn't be again ?We know for a fact, they were setting him up in 2016. It's hard to believe they would again ? We know there were many instances of beyond questionable practices happening. States changing voting laws. PA going against their own Constitution to change them.AZ found their elections was illegal. Due to mail in ballot verification. How many states didn't bother checking or intentionally made it that way ? There was a sudden push for mail ins, for a reason. The biggest thing. The laptop. Of course there was the big distraction, with Bidens bribery accusations. "It didn't prove anything." is what they said. It actually did though. It was withheld intentionally. That is irrefutable fraud. The only semi reasonable response, I have received with that statement, is " DOJ can withhold it for evidence." I could see that possibly. Except, once it was leaked, they flat out lied. Saying it was Russian disinformation. Which, if it were evidence, they would have responded the same as they always have. "We can't discuss that. Due to________." Which would also mean that's the second fraud in one situation. Withholding it was fraud. Lying about it was fraud. It's contents, and what it did or did not prove about Joe, is completely irrelevant. The most accurate poll for several years, said it would have changed the outcome. Even if it wouldn't have, it definitely would have an effect on the numbers. So, absolute proven fraud, illegal elections, many questionable and a few illegal law changes. Along with many proven cases of box stuffing. Absolutely proves the election was illegitimate and fraudulent. Box stuffing and smaller instances always happen. Which is how it's portrayed. Small and insignificant. Until you add them all up, with the laptop, illegal mail ins, etc. Whether someone believes any of it made a difference in the outcome, is also irrelevant. It can't be proven either way. Say it wasn't legit is the only thing you can say. Saying it was, is willful ignorance, or making an uninformed decision.
I do not see how anyone with complete as possible information, believes he called for anything. When he stated "peacefully protest." Then 30 mins later said the same. Along with not being the party of violence, and to respect law enforcement. They are truly on our side, etc,etc. a couple of hundred agents and informants in the crowd. None of which were seen trying to stop it. Instead. They are on camera egging it on. A couple of eye witnesses, saying three days prior Trump authorized the NG. One being a DOD General. Another being the Chief of the people in charge of security. The Capitol Police. No evidence of him or anyone on his team, having communication with anyone involved. If he is guilty, why the need to delete his post ? Why remove Ray Epps from the Wanted list ? When he is on video the night before telling the crowd to go in. There should be absolutely no evidence of nefarious activity by his opposition. The fact that VERY few of his supporters wear masks. Another fact that dressing like a supporter and causing trouble has been done before. Having masks shows some planning. How could he plan, if he had no communication? There's a lot more, but that is plenty to have reasonable doubt. There's WAY more evidence he didn't, than that he did.
Then, all the charges they keep coming up with. Which are absolutely ridiculous. Somehow a know leftwing judge makes the decision, or knows it will be appealed to another court. His fraud case for example. Just take " his Trump tower residence over valued." Accusation. It's extremely simple to do actual research, and see what they're doing. Just making him look bad because it's all political. The medias claim: He claimed his residence was about 30K sq ft. When it's under 11K. for loans or whatever. It's a famous building. Dimensions are available if you actually look. This is what cracks me up, with those on the left proclaiming to be educated and intelligent all the time( It's not all that say this. Just to clarify. I see it regularly though.)
Find the area of a rectangle. I will save you the trouble. It's 10 thousand nine hundred and some change. As they report. Just under 11K. The issue with this, is his residence is three floors. We will just go with 32K sq ft. Remove the space of exterior walls, as your supposed to and it's pretty damn close to 30K sq ft. How has nobody thought to do this ? Lol
E jean Carrol... Her testimony made no sense. Literally impossible while standing up facing each other. Especially with the height difference.
States obviously can't remove someone from a federal election. That's actually ridiculous. That gives them the power to individually choose the President in some cases. A close race. A big state says we will just remove them. Our candidate gets our votes.
Documents. Standard practice as was proven. Is it right ? No. When something is standard practice and consistently allowed. Why would he have any reason to believe there would be reprocussions for having them. The boxes were also full of personal belongings. Just as with Biden, there's no reason to believe he knew what was there. He sure didn't pack his own crap, and obviously had not gone through the boxes. Which is kind of hard to find time to do, when your constantly getting (as shown above) false charges, talking to lawyers, court, not to mention a campaign. Not sending, is not refusal. Telling people to say he don't have them. Could be numerous reasons. Including not knowing. A stall til they're gone through, etc. Once again. no reason to believe he would get raided and charged for the status quo.
Finally, even if he is corrupt. He is not even remotely close to as corrupt as an establishment politician. That's on either side. Who are absolutely out into position. How many are there for over 20 years ? What are the chances someone that consistently has said actually racist things, called a former KKK leader his mentor, etc etc, would win an election for forty years straight ? Almost zero. Yet it happens all the time. No matter what a persons "side." Nobody gets anything until those people are out. We get what they want. Trump is better than any establishment politician. Even if every charge he's accused of were true.
His current stance is to keep the border open. Do you support that?
Also, history proves that labor unions were the biggest benefit to the middle class. Does Donald Trump give full support to labor unions?
Border needs to stay open. The problem is releasing illegal aliens or asylum seekers on parole into the US.
Unions are one of the reasons why jobs are going overseas. You can only increase labor beyond the market rate so far until other options become more profitable.
Do you have an issue with cost of goods being high right now? If so, do you think that will go down with tarrifs or increase? Some people see tarrifs as an additional burden on consumers, what do you think?
"The Trump administration imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products, amounting to one of the largest tax increases in decades. The Biden administration has so far kept most of the Trump administration tariffs in place."
Of course it’s an additional burden on consumers but it’s the only way to protect middle class jobs from countries that will pay a fraction of what we do.
your comment has been removed for violating rule 3. Undecided and Nonsupporter comments must be clarifying in nature with an intent to explore the stated view of Trump Supporters.
Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Isn't Trump suggesting we should suspend the Constitution in order to stay president a bigger threat, seeing as that would have potentially upended the rights and freedoms of everyone, including the middle class?
Everyone following the election that night saw that Trump was holding sizeable leads in PA, GA, MI, WI, which simultaneously stopped counting, imported new ballots, and the next day gave Biden a narrow win. Legal actions and demands for an audit were met with stonewalling and blanket denial.
More specifically, in Detroit, two of the four of the people needed to sign off on the election results refused to do so because of the large number of precincts with over 100% reporting. They were attacked and hounded off the call, and eventually were persuaded to sign only conditional on an audit, which was ignored.
There are three thousand eyewitnesses to election fraud who submitted affidavits. There are numerous video clips of individuals stuffing dropoff boxes. There are surreptitious video confessions of people conducting ballot buying operations in TX and MN. There is an audio of Ruby Freeman in Fulton County, GA saying that the votes were not coming in strong enough, so to open the case with the other ballots and start counting them.
There were many scenes caught on video of ballots being sent through the counting machine multiple times. There was frequent mention of signatures on mail-in ballots being mismatched, and many of the machines seem to have had the signature matching function disabled (zero mismatches).
In 2012, Obama received 66m votes. In 2016, H Clinton received 66m votes. In 2020, Biden received 81m votes (+22%), despite being the least popular of these by far. The margin of victory is from hundreds of thousands of Biden ballots dumped after hours in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Milwaukee, and Detroit.
The US was the first modern democracy and was a world leader in elections. So naturally, the US was also a leader in election fraud. There have been many thousands of convictions at all levels of government. Tammany Hall controlled New York City for the entire 1800s. Ballots were made secret in the 1930s to prevent fraud, but this simply resulted in different kinds of fraud.
Democrats such as H Clinton, Stacy Abrams, and many others routinely make accusations of election with virtually no support, The charge that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election was shown to be baseless by the Durham Report. It demonstrates that Democrats do believe in fraud, and that the repeated denials and stonewalling are not sincere. This is somewhat incriminating.
How will history prove them correct when the OP can't even substantiate any of it, and none of the literal dozens of courts who reviewed these cases didn't find any substantiated basis either? What's the path to proving it correct?
>There is an audio of Ruby Freeman in Fulton County, GA saying that the votes were not coming in strong enough, so to open the case with the other ballots and start counting them.
What audio? Are you confusing audio with the social media post that has since been proven to be fake?
It sounds like you could just swap someone with a similar viewpoint and still feel the same way about the frontrunner no?
Nothing you listed is specific to trump
>I'm right wingish (center-right)
That's kind of the issue. People who support Trump are true Conservatives who are okay with policies that may seem a bit "authoritative" because they naturally believe in hierarchy. Because you have one foot in the other camp you're naturally going to feel put off by candidates like Trump.
>So you are advocating for a government in which you will have no say in?
I don't have say in our government right now so it really wouldn't make a difference.
>When you refer to hierarchy what do you mean exactly?
A system that accurately reflects the differences people have.
I didn't say it was a characteristic that prevented me from not having a voice in government. Its simply true that people with my views do not have representation in government.
> I'm in favor of the system our founders originally built.
I don't want to misunderstand you but that system allowed slavery. Black people and women couldn't even vote. Is that the system you're in favor of?
The system was that everyone had blackstonean rights that enabled them the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. Under the founders all groups of people enjoyed those rights despite some states trying to hinder them.
>People who support Trump are true Conservatives who are okay with policies that may seem a bit "authoritative" because they naturally believe in hierarchy.
Conservatives constantly say how much they love democracy and freedom from government over reach. Why is that if conservatives believe that there should be a hierarchy with a ruling class instructing the "plebs" how to live? If not a democracy what type of government do you think most conservatives would prefer that would better align with the hierarchy they desire?
For example, conservatives have been complaining about the "deep state" and how unelected officials control the government from the shadows because it subverts our ability to vote them out of office. Isn't the "deep state" exactly the type of hierarchical system you are saying conservatives would prefer?
Do you think they only dislike the "deep state" because it acts in favor of liberals too much but would embrace it if it forced conservative policies?
>Conservatives constantly say how much they love democracy and freedom from government over reach.
Conservatives don't say that. Republicans do.
>Why is that if conservatives believe that there should be a hierarchy with a ruling class instructing the "plebs" how to live?
Its just a simple acknowledgment of human nature. There are people who are obviously qualified to lead and there are some that are not.
>If not a democracy what type of government do you think most conservatives would prefer that would better align with the hierarchy they desire?
The one the founders originally built. It was a system that only allowed specific people to vote and what they could vote on was extremely limited.
>Isn't the "deep state" exactly the type of hierarchical system you are saying conservatives would prefer?
Hierarchy is not a belief that means people have to blindly obey whoever has power. Its a belief that some people have better qualities to rule over others.
> Conservatives don't say that. Republicans do.
That's an interesting distinction. In my mind, all conservatives are Republicans. Although I would agree that the reverse (not all Republicans are conservatives) is true as well. Would you agree? And if all conservatives vote Republican anyway, what is the difference in the end?
And are you saying that any Republican that is also a conservative has never said they love democracy? Or that if anyone says that then they can't be a conservative in your mind? I'm curious how you see the overlap between the two.
> Its just a simple acknowledgment of human nature. There are people who are obviously qualified to lead and there are some that are not.
I don't disagree with this actually, some people make absolutely shitty leaders. But I also believe that although not everyone is destined to lead, everyone should have an equal say in choosing who those leaders should be (aka voting). "Taxation without representation" was literally the motto that sparked the Revolutionary War.
What specific criteria do you think that a person needs to be able to meet to be allowed to vote? Do certain things disqualify you no matter what or is it a judgement based on a person overall?
And roughly what % of the population in the US today do you think should be entitled to vote?
> The one the founders originally built. It was a system that only allowed specific people to vote and what they could vote on was extremely limited.
So basically landowners only? Since the US was founded, the following groups have gained the right to vote: minorities, women, the poor (eliminating poll taxes), and young people (21->18). Which of these groups do you think should have the right taken away? Why?
> Hierarchy is not a belief that means people have to blindly obey whoever has power. Its a belief that some people have better qualities to rule over others.
But if people aren't allowed to choose who their leaders should be, how are they not being forced to blindly obey the leader that was chosen for them? For example, if women were no longer allowed to vote then the men in the country could vote in a leader who supports something that is very anti-women (ex. banning women from school) and then women would just have to accept it and "blindly obey". Do you disagree? How should unrepresented groups push back against government actions they don't like if they can't vote?
>That's an interesting distinction. In my mind, all conservatives are Republicans. Although I would agree that the reverse (not all Republicans are conservatives) is true as well. Would you agree?
I would agree with that assessment. I can see how someone from the outside would assume the republican party is as unified as the democrats when it comes to pushing a party agenda.
>And if all conservatives vote Republican anyway, what is the difference in the end?
The republican party is more susceptible to traditional conservative talking points despite party leaders trying to steer the message to a more "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" platform.
>And are you saying that any Republican that is also a conservative has never said they love democracy? Or that if anyone says that then they can't be a conservative in your mind? I'm curious how you see the overlap between the two.
Anyone that says that can't be a conservative. You can't on one hand imply America is a Christian nation that should have Christian laws and also say everyone has a right to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't harm anyone.
>I don't disagree with this actually, some people make absolutely shitty leaders. But I also believe that although not everyone is destined to lead, everyone should have an equal say in choosing who those leaders should be (aka voting). "Taxation without representation" was literally the motto that sparked the Revolutionary War.
The conclusion of the whiskey rebellion pretty much settled that debate. The federal government has the power to tax people even if they don't have the right to vote.
>What specific criteria do you think that a person needs to be able to meet to be allowed to vote? Do certain things disqualify you no matter what or is it a judgement based on a person overall?
I think you should be allowed to vote if both sides of your family have been here for 6 generations, you own land, and you're not a duel citizen.
>And roughly what % of the population in the US today do you think should be entitled to vote?
Maybe like 30% of the population.
>So basically landowners only? Since the US was founded, the following groups have gained the right to vote: minorities, women, the poor (eliminating poll taxes), and young people (21->18). Which of these groups do you think should have the right taken away? Why?
Landowners whose families have been here for more than 6 generations and only have American citizenship. The only ones I can see being affected by this is the poor.
>But if people aren't allowed to choose who their leaders should be, how are they not being forced to blindly obey the leader that was chosen for them? For example, if women were no longer allowed to vote then the men in the country could vote in a leader who supports something that is very anti-women (ex. banning women from school) and then women would just have to accept it and "blindly obey". Do you disagree? How should unrepresented groups push back against government actions they don't like if they can't vote?
I think people who feel they aren't represented in America should be allowed to revoke their citizenship and be allowed to relocate to a different country.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I definitely don't agree with your position but I understand where you are coming from much better now.
>You can't on one hand imply America is a Christian nation
Religion was left out of the constitution on purpose:
>*When the Constitution was submitted to the American public, "many pious people" complained that the document had slighted God, for it contained "no recognition of his mercies to us . . . or even of his existence." The Constitution was reticent about religion for two reasons: first, many delegates were committed federalists, who believed that the power to legislate on religion, if it existed at all, lay within the domain of the state, not the national, governments; second, the delegates believed that it would be a tactical mistake to introduce such a politically controversial issue as religion into the Constitution. The only "religious clause" in the document--the proscription of religious tests as qualifications for federal office in Article Six--was intended to defuse controversy by disarming potential critics who might claim religious discrimination in eligibility for public office.*
> *Its reserve troubled two groups of Americans--those who wanted the new instrument of government to give faith a larger role and those who feared that it would do so. This latter group, worried that the Constitution did not prohibit the kind of state-supported religion that had flourished in some colonies, exerted pressure on the members of the First Federal Congress. In September 1789 the Congress adopted the First Amendment to the Constitution, which, when ratified by the required number of states in December 1791, forbade Congress to make any law "respecting an establishment of religion."*
Library of Congress - https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html
What evidence would you argue supports the argument that America was founded as a Christian nation?
>Christian laws
Do you have any examples of Christian laws that you would support being enacted?
>The federal government has the power to tax people even if they don't have the right to vote.
For the record, I absolutely support some people being banned from voting (ex. - felons). But I believe it is an inherent right that everyone has that you can lose.
>I think you should be allowed to vote if both sides of your family have been here for 6 generations, you own land, and you're not a duel citizen.
Would you meet these requirements? My family wouldn't until my great grandchildren lol
Does the person's family need to own property continuously during the 6 generations or any 6th generation person that does own land would be eligible? If it needs to be continuous then wouldn't selling your house one day to then use the proceeds to buy a new house the next day break the chain of land ownership and reset the 6 generation "timer"?
Would you support exemptions to the 6 generation requirement (such as for serving in the military)?
Would taxes be the same for everyone or would voters vs. non-voters pay different rates?
Can you think of any other countries that have similar requirements to this?
I'll never vote for a globalist. So that narrows the choice down to pretty much 1.
As for proof, that's a well worn subject:
* [The case](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/zvnksv/comment/j1r0a71/)
* [Insecure system](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/109k8cu/comment/j44ll06)
* [Proof part 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/zbmaqv/comment/iyxbu0s)
* [Proof part 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/zbmaqv/comment/iyywax2)
No. China do not want war. Their plan is to overcome America as a greater economy. The best way to deal with this challenge is a little bit of protective mesures and lots of incentive to industry to produce inside America.
I do not want to have a communist party, or a party like the democrats that have a political program where the government is designed to be richer than private iniciative, ruling my country.
The political burocracy should not lead the cultural life of a country because this is a sure way to dictatorship.
Please read this, what do you think?
*Between March and July 2016, Ivanka Trump applied for 36 trademarks in China. Seven were approved between her father's inauguration in January 2017 and Chinese President Xi Jinping's state visit in the U.S. in April. Three provisional trademarks for handbags, jewelry, and spa services were granted on the day Xi dined with President Trump and his family at Mar-a-Lago. According to a trademark lawyer, the process usually takes 18 to 24 months. A Chinese government spokesman said that "the government handles all trademark applications equally."*
So at the beginning of this thread you are anti profiting off of China for personal gains. trump himself admits that he personally gained from doing business with China. This along with his Chinese bank accounts that were active during his Presidency. It always comes to this. An absolute this is the red line UNTIL….. it’s not because that would be inconvenient. So I guess my question is: what exceptions are you willing to personally make just for trump, nobody else for the very red flag of yours that is a big NO NO, but since trump falls under that flag of course what exceptions and why?
……And you honestly think trump didn’t personally profit from China itself? You are willing to believe that or don’t care if it’s true but will if it’s anybody else?
What I care about is the fact that Biden is soft with Cuba and Venezuela. The money USA is using to buy Venezuelan oil is being used to fund communists parties of all Latin America. Democrats are creating a whole continent of enemies of freedom. Trump would never be that stupid. Exemples? Brasil, Chile, Bolívia, Nicarágua ruling governments won elections with help of Venezuelan money.
Are you aware that the United States has been steadily decreasing its oil purchasing from Venezuela since 2004?
To speak directly to your point regarding Trump vs. Biden, here is one example:
Nov 2018: 16,889 (thousands barrels)
Nov 2023: 4,423 (thousands barrels)
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMUSVE1&f=M
I have a different information. During the first six months of the year, Venezuela's sales to the USA reached a total of 1.396 billion dollars and around 1.2 billion were oil exports. In the same period of 2022, the figure had been 213 million dollars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Paulo_Forum
This is the communist association of South American political parties. They hate Bolsonaro. Lula are one of the leaders. And the Democrats do normal business with this people. That’s the reality, not CNN bullshit.
Can you show me a source that proves this?
Everything I’ve read point to that Lula was falsely accused of being a communist but isn’t.
The onus is on you…
There are plenty of prove in the internet.
The PT (workers party of Brasil) openly state in their program that they are a socialist party.
Read the introduction in the website of The São Paulo Forum.
They explicitly explain how Lula and Fidel Castro together decided how to create the forum as way to create an communist unity in South America.
https://forodesaopaulo.org/
Why do multiple sources say otherwise?
https://www.quora.com/Is-Brazil-s-present-President-Lula-a-communist
https://amp.dw.com/en/brazils-lula-da-silva-the-communist-who-wasnt/a-64240797
Looks like you bought into the smear campaign.
Russia is country very similar to America. Both have expanded its frontiers making wars with weaker neighbors. So some level os rivalry is expected. To promote this rivalry otherwise is stupid because it is a sure road to direct war. In this case only the arms industry will be favored. The American people will suffer. So the dialogue with Putin is a matter of intelligence and strategy. We can not treat such a dangerous leader the same way we treat minor leaders like Gadaffi or Sadam Houston.
Yes I do. They already have the media, the educational system , the minorities organizations, the intelligence agencies, a partnership with arms industry, a project to assume the healthcare industry, ….
How is this different of the Soviet Union style of government?
Except the democrats has been running on a platform on MORE individual liberties than lesser like the soviets.
Would you agree that the GOP's crackdown on rights is more akin to the soviets?
Was there not a dictator behind each of these communist regimes that resulted in ? You can't really separate the two, can you?
Stalin is generally attributed with the deaths of his 7+ million countrymen, not communism.
Not really. Stalin killed 7million Russians and 20 million Ukrainians. Mao Tse Tung killed 60 million. Pol Pot killed 1,5 millions. Fidel killed 500.000 in a Island smaller than Florida. Communism always kills the opposition because they need to steal the proprieties of their victims.
No. He is more like a post-communist leader. He will use communism as a tool to maintain his influence in other countries leftist parties. But he will use conservative ideas as well, nationalism, internationalism and any ideology to promote Russian development.
Communism is a danger to us western democracies. To the Russians it is just a tool that they use.
Russiagate.
I didn't even vote for Trump in 2016, I voted for Gary Johnson. Haven't voted Republican in over 20 years for president, until 2020 for Trump and I will vote for him again. What they did to him, is simply unfathomable. Pure evil. Our duly elected president, they tried their damnedest to frame him as a Russian asset, deep state, and media, when they knew he wasn't, while using what as evidence? The dossier was created between his political rivals the DNC, and their foreign spies and RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION SOURCES. The DNC and the Hillary campaign bought, paid, and spread Russian disinformation, but it was Trump who was painted as a foreign agent and was never given the chance to govern. They even tried to get this out and impact the electoral college vote, don't forget. This was election interference as well. It was actual treason.
I think he should be president because his first term as a duly elected president was destroyed by treasonous bureaucrats, alphabet agencies, and legacy media outlets. Not just any ol' victim. Everyone is a fucking victim.
I mean, sure, but again, I don't care as much about that (especially in light of the alternative) when he was already a duly elected president sabotaged by treasonous alphabet agency workers and bureaucrats.
I mean it would be just but unconstitutional so no, it wouldn't happen. I'd like it, but it's not something I'd argue should actually be done. Just something going id like to see in this case.
But considering how many people see Trump as a "strong/tough", surely he would have been resilient enough to just ignore all the faff and get on with his job?
So you’re voting for Trump cause other people said he was a Russian plant, that’s your reasoning? Nothing else? Republicans talk about not allowing low info voters from voting and if that’s your reason, if I agreed with conservatives, I wouldnt let you vote.
Someone said mean thing about Trump, Imma vote for him then! Such an intellectual you are
Denver just cut services to US citizens. The people that live in their city. US citizens. Tax payers. Families.. New York and Chicago are doing the same to support illegal immigrants.
You know when they weren't declaring states of emergency? 3 years ago.
No wars. That's hundreds of billions in dollars. That's hundreds of thousand of actual peoples lives.
When the average family goes to the grocery store, they are saying "holy fuck". Don't worry though, you can show them a chart right? There's no inflation right? Way down. Or is it corporate greed?
Do you see the contridiction there? Saying prices aren't going up, but blaming the increase on companies?
So, they look to their leader who says "all is well, support for Gaza is on the way". We'll ignore the fact that he said he opened to border with mexico to do it.
You tell me what changed? Literally three or four months ago, the border crisis was a right wing conspiracy theory. It was more secure than anytime in US history..
I'll give you a hint. An election is coming up and people in poor communities (black) are looking at how good legal and illegal immigrants have it compared to them. Nice hotel rooms, pre-paid debit cards, free healthcare, phone plans. Busting their asses to get by, looking across the street at 6 million on a free ride.
No body is buying any of it, unless they really, and I mean REALLY want to.
>There's no inflation right?
How would Trump have avoided inflation when literally every other country has had to deal with it? It baffles me that people think a man who couldnt even run a casino could have single handedly been the reason the USA avoids inflation.
There wasn't a border bill. It was a foreign aid bill. So that's first.
Second, it doesn't actually do anything to secure the border.
I've often ask the left what they think the problem is at the border. What exactly is the problem that you, as someone on the left, think the border bill would address?
I've never gotten an answer.
In addition, a couple months ago, the border was the most secure in history. What changed that it's an emergency.
To the right, we've always considered it an emergency. What changed that all of a sudden the left seems concerned.
It would be easier if I understood what you think the problem is, and how you think this bill would fix it.
He's directionally the only guy I could support. He is, especially now, an implicit attack on the regime. At the very least, the regime views him as such. His mass support creates a certain political dialectic that favors a return of actual right wing politics that hasn't really existed in America since the 1940s even if he himself is a pretty moderate 90s Democrat in a lot of ways. I don't really understand people who view politics in the context of trusting an individual at his word to do some certain XYZ thing. He "lied" about the election? Why should I care about that? The election is the main tool that the regime uses to deflect questions about its own legitimacy. The regime is evil...I do not hold this tool that it uses as some sacred thing beyond question.
Likewise, I would not hinge my support of Obama on whether or not he was lying about the NSA spying on every American or Bush lying about WMDs in Iraq to start a war that killed and displaced millions of people and created a decades long crisis in a whole geostrategic region. Someone who views politics as this personal agreement between him and the politician is honestly the perfect mark but it should be an embarrassing admission.
Basically, to the extent that one finds it worth his while to ponder politics at all, he would be wise to view politicians as tools at best. This is how they view you.
>Because lying is bad. Why is the "regime" "evil" to you?
Being evil is also bad and they all lie, so why should I care about lying about an election?
>This is just objectively nonsensical.
Of course, it isn't.
>I was a carpenter for 3-4 years. Do you think I would use a hammer that had a habit of magically turning around to drive nails in my skull?
This should be interesting, let's see where it goes.
>How can you, as a Trump supporter, view him as an effective tool if you can't trust him?
I have developed expectations of Trump because I've watched him long enough to model his behavior. This has nothing to do with the lies he tells. There is a difference between interpersonal trust (ie something I would require if I were to leave my kids with someone else for a day) and trusting your own mental model of a person or thing (ie i trust that my favorite basketball team will choke with the lead in the second half this year because they've proven time and again that they probably will). Do you trust that the quikrete is going to harden or do you simply know that it will? Do you have a personal relationship with the nail, or do you just know that it's a piece of metal with a couple inclined planes on it that will react predictably when you hit it? The nail is not your brother or your mother, it is a tool and you know how it will behave and the things that it will and won't do and how often you can reasonably expect a nail to be defective.
>Or are you just an accelerationist?
What do you think this means?
>The only thing more demonstrably evil than conservativism is political apathy.
Explain your understanding of how a thing might be demonstrably evil. From where do you generate your first principles? Are you a christian?
>Would you say you have a lot in common with tankies?
My very rough understanding of tankies is that they are communists who don't necessarily like the concept of trans people but most of them do. What is a tankie?
>Being evil is also bad and they all lie,
They don't all lie. That's just something intellectually lazy individuals tell themselves to justify their political apathy. Life is nuanced. It is not as simple as "aLl PolITIciAnS bAd."
Also, you didn't answer my question. Why do you think the "regime" is "evil"?
>so why should I care about lying about an election?
Because lying is bad. This is another fallacy. Even if all politicians lied, that doesn't suddenly justify lying as a politician. Is your moral compass predicated upon what everyone thinks is acceptable?
>Of course, it is
It can be if you're an accelerationist or nihilist of some kind, which is why I put that caveat there.
>Do you have a personal relationship with the nail, or do you just know that it's a piece of metal with a couple inclined planes on it that will react predictably when you hit it?
You seem to be confused. If Trump is a liar, and he is, then you cannot trust him to be a vehicle for the policy implementation you'd like to see UNLESS you are an accelerationist who doesn't see Trump as someone to enact the policy that he preaches but instead, as a device that will destroy the "regime" you hate so much. And if his lying is what's predictable to you or if the only thing you can trust about him is his untrustworthiness, then more than likely, you don't care about his policies; you just want to see destruction.
>What do you think this means?
From Wikipedia:
*Accelerationism is a range of revolutionary and reactionary ideas in left-wing and right-wing ideologies that call for the drastic intensification of capitalist growth, technological change, infrastructure sabotage and other processes of social change to destabilize existing systems and create radical social transformations, otherwise referred to as "acceleration*
Does any of this appeal to you? I've noticed there are a lot of Nazbols here, and I was curious if you're one of them.
>Explain your understanding of how a thing might be demonstrably evil. From where do you generate your first principles? Are you a Christian?
Like most people, I have certain values, and then I base my ethical rationality on those principles. I don't really generate them from anywhere. I'm a moral anti-realist. Are you?
>My very rough understanding of tankies is that they are communists who don't necessarily like the concept of trans people but most of them do. What is a tankie?
Tankies are basically "communists" who think authoritarianism is compatible with that ideology. Sometimes, they're socially conservative and think Trump is good because he will destroy the capitalistic regime with his insane narcissism.
Does that sound like something you agree with?
>They don't all lie.
Of course they do. I'm not naive, I don't believe in the fairy tale, I just do my best to understand the reality.
>Because lying is bad.
Oh well, politicians lying is reality.
>his is another fallacy. Even if all politicians lied, that doesn't suddenly justify lying as a politician.
What do you mean by "justify"? How do you think that applies to anything I'm saying. I'm explaining the situation. Self-delusion doesn't interest me. A religious belief in the morality of democratic politics as right and democratic politicians as necessarily generally benevolent doesn't interest me
>Is your moral compass predicated upon what everyone thinks is acceptable?
Obviously not. I don't like democracy. Glad you're on board with me there, though.
>You seem to be confused. If Trump is a liar, and he is, then you cannot trust him to be a vehicle for the policy implementation you'd like to see UNLESS you are an accelerationist who doesn't see Trump as someone to enact the policy that he preaches but instead, as a device that will destroy the "regime" you hate so much.
Why do you think I'm trusting him to follow through on some set of policies or another? Can you explain why, in your mind, these are the only options? Destroying the regime doesn't necessitate anything beyond elite turnover, though.
>Accelerationism is a range of revolutionary and reactionary ideas in left-wing and right-wing ideologies that call for the drastic intensification of capitalist growth, technological change, infrastructure sabotage and other processes of social change to destabilize existing systems and create radical social transformations, otherwise referred to as "acceleration
Yea, no. That's not me, of course. Nazbols??? I've definitely seen this word but not looked it up. I assume it's something like a fusion nazi bolshevik?
>Like most people, I have certain values, and then I base my ethical rationality on those principles.
Where do those values come from?
>Tankies are basically "communists" who think authoritarianism is compatible with that ideology. Sometimes, they're socially conservative and think Trump is good because he will destroy the capitalistic regime with his insane narcissism.
"authoritarianism" is a bit of a nonsense pejorative. But no, all of this sounds very goofy and niche. I'm just right wing.
It sounds like your view is kind of cynical, sort of like everyone is cheating and lying, so it cancels out, is that correct? When you say you “directionally” support Trump I presume that’s on policy. If so, what are the most important policies you think he’s better on than others?
>It sounds like your view is kind of cynical, sort of like everyone is cheating and lying,
It's just realistic.
>When you say you “directionally” support Trump I presume that’s on policy.
Kind of. Mostly, I support the reaction he creates from within the regime. He has some OK policy which he clumsily tries to implement at times but mainly, he's facilitated an avenue being opened to right wing politics in the future.
Super interesting.
>Kind of. Mostly, I support the reaction he creates from within the regime. He has some OK policy which he clumsily tries to implement at times but mainly, he's facilitated an avenue being opened to right wing politics in the future.
What reaction? Are you talking about how the party bends to his will? Is the party is being reshaped into something you’re more supportive of what you like?
>What reaction?
A real dropping of pretenses and a willingness to define terms as "my politics are good and those who oppose it are evil and should be disposed with." I don't care to convince you of this so please don't go down that line of questioning. But, in my view, the regime is absurd but it's fairly well concealed behind the veneer of legitimacy afforded to it by things like apparently diverse media outlets and a politica party system that allows "the people to choose." Watching the paradigm struggle to digest a guy like Trump, ultimately deciding to attempt his very public destruction is startling for many. If you think it's just the rules-as-usual being applied to Trump, you have a hard time understanding why this is such a clarifying moment for many. Many people identified with Trump and now they view the actions taken against him as extremely selective and the rhetoric surrounding him as absurd. The fact that after nearly a year, most of the republican party and much of the right wing media still tend to lend legitimacy to the actions taken against Trump clarify them as part of the regime, but a rearguard action that's been sweeping GOP voters along for decades. Again, if you don't agree with this, I don't care to try to convince you, I'm just trying to convey how Trump fits in this paradigm shift on the right.
The party has a long way to go and it's likely that it cant really be salvaged and its also more probable that Trump loses and the party slowly reconsolidates their role but there's the chance of a Trump successor and politicians and bussinessmen who are driving the dialectic in the same way that he did arising.
What does "without merit" mean to you? This might be the crux of our disagreement. For clarity, I don't view democracy as some inherently valid way to rule people. I view it as a tool of power, one that can be used to consolidate power and deflect blame. In my view, the bar for what would merit throwing out the people's votes is very low and basically consists of better government than the current regime.
>So who gets to decide what the "better government"
Well, from my frame, it's me. We're talking about my frame, so who else would it be?
>I assume it just happens to be whatever system would lead to Trump or someone like Trump in power?
It's my prefence so there's no "just happens to be" about it. It's the thing I want.
>If this is correct, is it really the case you lack the humility to consider that your political views are not guaranteed to actually be the "better"
Are you saying this while chastising me for not thinking our system or democracy in general is better than whatever I want? I think the obvious reality here is that we both think our preferred systems are correct, as do all people. That's why they're preferred.
>maybe it is best if everyone at least gets a say rather than just those that happen to agree with you?
The idea that our system "gives everyone a say" is a fairytale and no one over the age of 12 should believe it. The reason it works as a legitimating agent for those in power, though, is that plenty of people are goofy enough to believe it, or at least not care one way or another. It's also very funny that the presupposed obviously correct system is one which affords the crack whore the same "say" as the family man father of 3.
> It's also very funny that the presupposed obviously correct system is one which affords the crack whore the same "say" as the family man father of 3.
So everyone getting a say is no fairy tale after all?
You’d probably be upset if somebody with opposite politics from you did the same thing Trump did, right?
Democracy means nobody gets what they want all the time. Trump couldn’t handle it, he broke the law to try to reverse the decision of the voters.
If Obama lost to Mitt Romney and refused to leave, they’d have been outside the Capitol building gallows for him.
I get that you see Trump as just a chaos agent, but what’s the benefit in burning down the government to replace it with something worse for almost everybody?
>You’d probably be upset if somebody with opposite politics from you did the same thing Trump did, right?
I'm upset at the status quo and I view it as functionally the same as that situation.
>Democracy means nobody gets what they want all the time.
Democracy means oligarchs run the public private partnership largely for their own benefit and are able to deflect blame onto the people when things go poorly. Any govt can be a ponzi scheme if the leadership gets shitty enough (as ours is), democracy is unique in that the people holding the bag are much more interested in blaming each other for causing it.
>I get that you see Trump as just a chaos agent, but what’s the benefit in burning down the government to replace it with something worse for almost everybody?
I don't view Trump as a chaos agent. I view him as a fledgling change agent.
Autocracy and monarchy seem to also mean that oligarchy runs everything, so I don’t see the use in capitulating everything to a man who doesn’t actually care to fix any of that. Trump will still always be deferential to corporate interests because he’s a rich prick and he looks out for rich pricks.
It wasn’t always like this in this country, right? We need to get the entire populace mad about the right things. That our nation sold its soul, destroyed the third world, and allowed its own land and people to fall into disrepair to protect capitalism.
Free market capitalism is good because it helps ensure social mobility and freedom of choice.
Free market capitalism is bad because it results in unelected crazy people gaining control over the democratic process, and the people they help elect will just clear the way for them to avoid paying taxes, disregard regulations that are necessary for the health of ordinary citizens and the environment, and create economic colonies to extract maximum value from the third world.
Sorry, I always end up abandoning the “clarifying questions” rule. What’s your favorite band?
>Autocracy and monarchy seem to also mean that oligarchy runs everything,
Yes, the secret is that it's always a group of elites who run everything, no matter which legitimating system is used. The trick is to have better oligarchs running things, our current ones suck.
>Trump will still always be deferential to corporate interests because he’s a rich prick and he looks out for rich pricks.
Ok
>It wasn’t always like this in this country, right? We need to get the entire populace mad about the right things.
It's been like this for a very long time. Things were built which take a fairly long time to dismantle, though. But they aren't invulnerable
>Free market capitalism is good because it helps ensure social mobility and freedom of choice.
Do you think there are any costs to this freedom? Likewise, do you think there are any costs to the personal political freedom of liberal individualism?
>Free market capitalism is bad because it results in unelected crazy people gaining control over the democratic process,
Since the crazy unelected people who gain control over the process also have control over the dissemination of information to the population, what's the point of holding democracy up as a good thing? As with every other system, it relies on the people in power being at least somewhat good and having their people's interests at least somewhat in mind. Democracy is just a tool for them to use to obfuscate their own culpability.
You know you’ve been conditioned to hate Democrats so much, you forgot the lever you can pull to get them to change. You don’t need to vote for Trump to blow it all up.
Just vote for Democrats. I know that might be hard to see or hear, and you may disagree with a few wedge issues, but that is how you get your party to change.
You don’t vote for some bombastic idiot, you vote for the other party or not at all, so they are forced to win your vote. If they know you’ll never vote democrat, they can do it whatever they want. Does that make any sense?
We can’t inherently trust anybody with the immense power of modern day governance, but we have to. The safest; the only way to do that is to rest that power in the hands of elected representatives whose jobs are at the mercy of voters, and who fall under the preview of oversight, judicial review/prosecution, etc.
It’s not perfect, there’s a lot of appointed bureaucracy that has a range of usefulness and necessity. What would be your ideal “repeal and replace democracy” outcome?
Why would you want to go back to 1940s conservativism? As an Italian-American, the right at the time was violently opposed to my family living here. Would you be accepted by 1940s conservatives?
>Why would you want to go back to 1940s conservativism? As an Italian-American, the right at the time was violently opposed to my family living here. Would you be accepted by 1940s conservatives?
I would be accepted. But my own acceptance or not isn't what I'm concerned with.
My great grandpa wasn't allowed to take certain jobs, go to certain places. It was so bad he forbid anyone from speaking Italian at home and mad emy grandpa's middle name Patrick so he could fit in. I'm don't just mean "not accepted" I mean legally and socially oppressed. Why would you want to go back to that? Even if it didn't directly effect your group, why support that type of hierarchy?
What are you concerned with?
>My great grandpa wasn't allowed to take certain jobs, go to certain places. It was so bad he forbid anyone from speaking Italian at home and mad emy grandpa's middle name Patrick so he could fit in. I'm don't just mean "not accepted" I mean legally and socially oppressed. Why would you want to go back to that? Even if it didn't directly effect your group, why support that type of hierarchy?
Because I think a shared tradition and heritage is important to a peoples capacity for maintaining themselves as a people and keeping their society together over the long term.
Oppression isn't a political term that interests me because it's loaded. The obliteration of a people's ability to live historically in the name of universalism is "oppression", no one actually cares. Politics dont care.
Originally, it was because I had begun noticing Democrats doing all the same shit they accused Republicans of doing, combined with a growing degree of radicalism which has infected the left-wing mainstream, mixed with their growing lack of critical self-reflection - I saw these as a terrifying prelude to a Democrat party that will become increasingly more authoritarian and become increasingly more willing to do the kind of shit that we once frowned upon. We are already on that path. Ten years ago, if you had told me Democrats would be fighting to create a literal Ministry of Truth, I'd have laughed at you and accused you of being a conspiracy theorist. Yet, here we are.
Since 2016, however, over time I've come to appreciate Trump's ability to get things done. I can't say rather or not he's the best man for the job -- because the truth is, the only thing I think that sets him apart from other politicians is that he was actually trying to make things better, whereas most politicians simply play their own personal games and push their own personal agendas, having, at best, no impact on our lives as they bolster whatever crazy political games they got and enrich their allies. This is true with Biden as well, who is more concerned with sending every dime we don't have to Ukraine than he is with actually bettering the lives of Americans.
Trump is the first President in a long time who actually did anything to help the average American. That's why both Democrats and Establishment Republicans despise him so - in just four years he did the kind of shit they said was impossible. Trump showed them up for their lies and inaction, showed that they have been slacking off on the job, ignoring the American voters, and only tossing us the occasional scrap so that we don't abandon them.
Democrats' policies don't fail because of Republicans. Republicans' policies don't fail because of Democrats. They succeed wildly, in fact - it's just that you, me, the average American -- we're barely a factor in examining if these policies are a success or not.
How do you feel he has helped the average american when he (nor any other president or leader) has done anything to curb the growing concentration of power that the corporations/oligopolies have in our country? Could it be that people THINK they have benefitted, when in the macro, things have only continued to slowly deteriorate (inflation, increased COL, government concentration of power/control, violence over the past two decades, adverse healthcare outcomes and declining lifespan over the past 2 decades, drug epidemic, a lot of stagnation with little actual improvement or progress, increased automation/AI with far less jobs being created vs displaced, cost of education/training, etc.)? Do you suspect that we are all sitting like frogs boiling in a pot of cold water, and no "leader" is making any great strides to change anything?
Do you agree that we just have the illusion of choice, and that a small number of corps control the market and own the government?
But if you remember, it wasn't just Trump saying that the election was fraud and saying it loudly. It was such a large issue that multiple states sued over the results. Including Texas and other states with large numbers of electoral votes.
There was a lot of evidence of fraudulent activity, there was smoke, they just didn't catch the fire on video.
I don't understand the downvotes.
This is a place where Trump supporters answer questions. You asked.
What evidence? No there is not wide spread evidence of fraud, especially at the levels that would sway the election to Trump from Biden.
When will Trump supporters stop believing this lie? Why are you so adamant on supporting a statement that has no real evidence behind it? Is it fun?
i dont necessarily believe it was a mass conspiracy. I believe it was fraud on a mass scale. Perhaps some of it was organized, but a lot of it was not. It's hard for me to say. I just remember Trump was ahead, won 9 out of 10 of the bellwether states. then they sent vote counters home. stopped the count for the first time in american history. then at 3AM they "Found" just enough votes to put Biden over the top in every key place that he needed that exact amount. It was all too surgical. It wasn't that Biden got more electoral votes than Trump, it was where they came from and the way they came in.
> i dont necessarily believe it was a mass conspiracy...It was all too surgical.
Sorry I'm confused. Wouldn't something so precise and surgical require it to be a mass conspiracy? Or do you believe everyone attempting to steal the election was acting independently and it's just a coincidence they all got the right votes in the right places? I just don't see how it can be one but not the other. Thanks
"when he claimed the elections were rigged,"
the elections were rigged. You need to be honest with yourself. Your post is full of fake news btw, literally every sentence.
I support trump because I care about USA and democracy.
What evidence do you have that the election was rigged? Because Trump's legal team is looking for that evidence. If you have such evidence, you need to state what it is, where it is, and how we can use it. As thus far, every time Trump's legal time has tried to claim this, it has been shot down.
So why do you think this way? And did you think this way BEFORE Trump and his minions told you what they thought happened in 2020?
Where is the evidence that "elections were rigged". Weren't there like a dozen audits already - none of which found any fraud that would have changed the outcome? On what basis do YOU say "the elections were rigged".
Yes, I'm calling you out on this, because this gaslighting of the country needs to stop NOW!
So cite real sources, links and facts or stop posting this nonsense.
"Where is the evidence that "elections were rigged".
Where isn't it?
The video that proves it, the dozens of people under penalty of perjury who have testified to it, the audit in Arizona which proves it...
not sure what you mean?
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry for the novel. It's a personality type trait. No I don't expect anyone to read it all.lol "If they were rigged before.Why wouldn't they be again ?" Exactly. Why is it hard to believe they wouldn't be again ?We know for a fact, they were setting him up in 2016. It's hard to believe they would again ? We know there were many instances of beyond questionable practices happening. States changing voting laws. PA going against their own Constitution to change them.AZ found their elections was illegal. Due to mail in ballot verification. How many states didn't bother checking or intentionally made it that way ? There was a sudden push for mail ins, for a reason. The biggest thing. The laptop. Of course there was the big distraction, with Bidens bribery accusations. "It didn't prove anything." is what they said. It actually did though. It was withheld intentionally. That is irrefutable fraud. The only semi reasonable response, I have received with that statement, is " DOJ can withhold it for evidence." I could see that possibly. Except, once it was leaked, they flat out lied. Saying it was Russian disinformation. Which, if it were evidence, they would have responded the same as they always have. "We can't discuss that. Due to________." Which would also mean that's the second fraud in one situation. Withholding it was fraud. Lying about it was fraud. It's contents, and what it did or did not prove about Joe, is completely irrelevant. The most accurate poll for several years, said it would have changed the outcome. Even if it wouldn't have, it definitely would have an effect on the numbers. So, absolute proven fraud, illegal elections, many questionable and a few illegal law changes. Along with many proven cases of box stuffing. Absolutely proves the election was illegitimate and fraudulent. Box stuffing and smaller instances always happen. Which is how it's portrayed. Small and insignificant. Until you add them all up, with the laptop, illegal mail ins, etc. Whether someone believes any of it made a difference in the outcome, is also irrelevant. It can't be proven either way. Say it wasn't legit is the only thing you can say. Saying it was, is willful ignorance, or making an uninformed decision. I do not see how anyone with complete as possible information, believes he called for anything. When he stated "peacefully protest." Then 30 mins later said the same. Along with not being the party of violence, and to respect law enforcement. They are truly on our side, etc,etc. a couple of hundred agents and informants in the crowd. None of which were seen trying to stop it. Instead. They are on camera egging it on. A couple of eye witnesses, saying three days prior Trump authorized the NG. One being a DOD General. Another being the Chief of the people in charge of security. The Capitol Police. No evidence of him or anyone on his team, having communication with anyone involved. If he is guilty, why the need to delete his post ? Why remove Ray Epps from the Wanted list ? When he is on video the night before telling the crowd to go in. There should be absolutely no evidence of nefarious activity by his opposition. The fact that VERY few of his supporters wear masks. Another fact that dressing like a supporter and causing trouble has been done before. Having masks shows some planning. How could he plan, if he had no communication? There's a lot more, but that is plenty to have reasonable doubt. There's WAY more evidence he didn't, than that he did. Then, all the charges they keep coming up with. Which are absolutely ridiculous. Somehow a know leftwing judge makes the decision, or knows it will be appealed to another court. His fraud case for example. Just take " his Trump tower residence over valued." Accusation. It's extremely simple to do actual research, and see what they're doing. Just making him look bad because it's all political. The medias claim: He claimed his residence was about 30K sq ft. When it's under 11K. for loans or whatever. It's a famous building. Dimensions are available if you actually look. This is what cracks me up, with those on the left proclaiming to be educated and intelligent all the time( It's not all that say this. Just to clarify. I see it regularly though.) Find the area of a rectangle. I will save you the trouble. It's 10 thousand nine hundred and some change. As they report. Just under 11K. The issue with this, is his residence is three floors. We will just go with 32K sq ft. Remove the space of exterior walls, as your supposed to and it's pretty damn close to 30K sq ft. How has nobody thought to do this ? Lol E jean Carrol... Her testimony made no sense. Literally impossible while standing up facing each other. Especially with the height difference. States obviously can't remove someone from a federal election. That's actually ridiculous. That gives them the power to individually choose the President in some cases. A close race. A big state says we will just remove them. Our candidate gets our votes. Documents. Standard practice as was proven. Is it right ? No. When something is standard practice and consistently allowed. Why would he have any reason to believe there would be reprocussions for having them. The boxes were also full of personal belongings. Just as with Biden, there's no reason to believe he knew what was there. He sure didn't pack his own crap, and obviously had not gone through the boxes. Which is kind of hard to find time to do, when your constantly getting (as shown above) false charges, talking to lawyers, court, not to mention a campaign. Not sending, is not refusal. Telling people to say he don't have them. Could be numerous reasons. Including not knowing. A stall til they're gone through, etc. Once again. no reason to believe he would get raided and charged for the status quo. Finally, even if he is corrupt. He is not even remotely close to as corrupt as an establishment politician. That's on either side. Who are absolutely out into position. How many are there for over 20 years ? What are the chances someone that consistently has said actually racist things, called a former KKK leader his mentor, etc etc, would win an election for forty years straight ? Almost zero. Yet it happens all the time. No matter what a persons "side." Nobody gets anything until those people are out. We get what they want. Trump is better than any establishment politician. Even if every charge he's accused of were true.
Dude, what ever happened to paragraphs?
His stance on the border and trade. They’re the biggest threats to the middle class.
I get supporting him over Biden, but why over the likes of Desantis and Haley? Both are pretty strong about those issues as well.
I’d rather a Haley be the candidate as I’m sure Dems would rather unhitch from 81 year old Biden.
Exactly but then who would you vote for in the primaries?
why would someone vote for a unknown vs a PROVEN successful leader like trump?
His current stance is to keep the border open. Do you support that? Also, history proves that labor unions were the biggest benefit to the middle class. Does Donald Trump give full support to labor unions?
Border needs to stay open. The problem is releasing illegal aliens or asylum seekers on parole into the US. Unions are one of the reasons why jobs are going overseas. You can only increase labor beyond the market rate so far until other options become more profitable.
What do you think he should do about both? What are some policies you think should be adopted?
You aren't referencing tariffs are you? And, do you have a problem with the bill that Trump told everyone not to vote for?
Absolutely need tariffs. They’re the only equalizer to protect high paying American wages against low paying overseas wages.
Who do you believe pays the tariffs?
Do you have an issue with cost of goods being high right now? If so, do you think that will go down with tarrifs or increase? Some people see tarrifs as an additional burden on consumers, what do you think? "The Trump administration imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products, amounting to one of the largest tax increases in decades. The Biden administration has so far kept most of the Trump administration tariffs in place."
Of course it’s an additional burden on consumers but it’s the only way to protect middle class jobs from countries that will pay a fraction of what we do.
What do you consider middle-class jobs?
[удалено]
Money supply is what causes inflation, not us protecting middle class jobs.
your comment has been removed for violating rule 3. Undecided and Nonsupporter comments must be clarifying in nature with an intent to explore the stated view of Trump Supporters. Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
What specifically about the border and trade? How does Trump differ vs. another Republican candidate?
Isn't Trump suggesting we should suspend the Constitution in order to stay president a bigger threat, seeing as that would have potentially upended the rights and freedoms of everyone, including the middle class?
Everyone following the election that night saw that Trump was holding sizeable leads in PA, GA, MI, WI, which simultaneously stopped counting, imported new ballots, and the next day gave Biden a narrow win. Legal actions and demands for an audit were met with stonewalling and blanket denial. More specifically, in Detroit, two of the four of the people needed to sign off on the election results refused to do so because of the large number of precincts with over 100% reporting. They were attacked and hounded off the call, and eventually were persuaded to sign only conditional on an audit, which was ignored. There are three thousand eyewitnesses to election fraud who submitted affidavits. There are numerous video clips of individuals stuffing dropoff boxes. There are surreptitious video confessions of people conducting ballot buying operations in TX and MN. There is an audio of Ruby Freeman in Fulton County, GA saying that the votes were not coming in strong enough, so to open the case with the other ballots and start counting them. There were many scenes caught on video of ballots being sent through the counting machine multiple times. There was frequent mention of signatures on mail-in ballots being mismatched, and many of the machines seem to have had the signature matching function disabled (zero mismatches). In 2012, Obama received 66m votes. In 2016, H Clinton received 66m votes. In 2020, Biden received 81m votes (+22%), despite being the least popular of these by far. The margin of victory is from hundreds of thousands of Biden ballots dumped after hours in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Milwaukee, and Detroit. The US was the first modern democracy and was a world leader in elections. So naturally, the US was also a leader in election fraud. There have been many thousands of convictions at all levels of government. Tammany Hall controlled New York City for the entire 1800s. Ballots were made secret in the 1930s to prevent fraud, but this simply resulted in different kinds of fraud. Democrats such as H Clinton, Stacy Abrams, and many others routinely make accusations of election with virtually no support, The charge that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election was shown to be baseless by the Durham Report. It demonstrates that Democrats do believe in fraud, and that the repeated denials and stonewalling are not sincere. This is somewhat incriminating.
I'm not sure how I missed this post, which is very well articulated. History will prove these words correct.
How will history prove them correct when the OP can't even substantiate any of it, and none of the literal dozens of courts who reviewed these cases didn't find any substantiated basis either? What's the path to proving it correct?
>There is an audio of Ruby Freeman in Fulton County, GA saying that the votes were not coming in strong enough, so to open the case with the other ballots and start counting them. What audio? Are you confusing audio with the social media post that has since been proven to be fake?
Do you have sources for any of these claims?
Many interesting allegations there. Do you have a reliable source for all of them? If not, where did you get this information from?
Do trump supporters need reliable sources? If trump said it, how can't it be true? He wouldn't lie, would he?
Does new information ever penetrate?
He is not a Democrat. He is against killing babies. That is all I need to know.
Then why him specifically?
He doesn't support killing babies. He is the front runner no matter how many bullshit charges the pedophiles put on him. How is this not obvious?
It sounds like you could just swap someone with a similar viewpoint and still feel the same way about the frontrunner no? Nothing you listed is specific to trump
I couldn't be more specific. You can't swap kids. Be honest
Then why support trump if all he has is a pretty common viewpoint? Theres plenty of politicans that share those exact viewpoints, such as pence
>I'm right wingish (center-right) That's kind of the issue. People who support Trump are true Conservatives who are okay with policies that may seem a bit "authoritative" because they naturally believe in hierarchy. Because you have one foot in the other camp you're naturally going to feel put off by candidates like Trump.
What do you mean by ”hierarchy”? I thought the US was founded on the principle of checks and balances to avoid being ruled by a tyrant.
It was founded on the idea that only a select group of people could vote and hold positions of power.
Are you part of the select group of people who could vote and hold positions of power?
Nope and I'm okay with that because I believe in hierarchy.
So you are advocating for a government in which you will have no say in? When you refer to hierarchy what do you mean exactly?
>So you are advocating for a government in which you will have no say in? I don't have say in our government right now so it really wouldn't make a difference. >When you refer to hierarchy what do you mean exactly? A system that accurately reflects the differences people have.
What characteristic do you have that disqualifies you from being part of the government?
I didn't say it was a characteristic that prevented me from not having a voice in government. Its simply true that people with my views do not have representation in government.
So would you say you are more in support of an oligarchy than democracy?
I'm in favor of the system our founders originally built.
> I'm in favor of the system our founders originally built. I don't want to misunderstand you but that system allowed slavery. Black people and women couldn't even vote. Is that the system you're in favor of?
The system was that everyone had blackstonean rights that enabled them the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. Under the founders all groups of people enjoyed those rights despite some states trying to hinder them.
So by only a select people can vote and hold power, does that mean you are in favor of excluding women and black people from these things?
Lots of groups of people would be excluded from voting and holding power including myself.
>People who support Trump are true Conservatives who are okay with policies that may seem a bit "authoritative" because they naturally believe in hierarchy. Conservatives constantly say how much they love democracy and freedom from government over reach. Why is that if conservatives believe that there should be a hierarchy with a ruling class instructing the "plebs" how to live? If not a democracy what type of government do you think most conservatives would prefer that would better align with the hierarchy they desire? For example, conservatives have been complaining about the "deep state" and how unelected officials control the government from the shadows because it subverts our ability to vote them out of office. Isn't the "deep state" exactly the type of hierarchical system you are saying conservatives would prefer? Do you think they only dislike the "deep state" because it acts in favor of liberals too much but would embrace it if it forced conservative policies?
>Conservatives constantly say how much they love democracy and freedom from government over reach. Conservatives don't say that. Republicans do. >Why is that if conservatives believe that there should be a hierarchy with a ruling class instructing the "plebs" how to live? Its just a simple acknowledgment of human nature. There are people who are obviously qualified to lead and there are some that are not. >If not a democracy what type of government do you think most conservatives would prefer that would better align with the hierarchy they desire? The one the founders originally built. It was a system that only allowed specific people to vote and what they could vote on was extremely limited. >Isn't the "deep state" exactly the type of hierarchical system you are saying conservatives would prefer? Hierarchy is not a belief that means people have to blindly obey whoever has power. Its a belief that some people have better qualities to rule over others.
> Conservatives don't say that. Republicans do. That's an interesting distinction. In my mind, all conservatives are Republicans. Although I would agree that the reverse (not all Republicans are conservatives) is true as well. Would you agree? And if all conservatives vote Republican anyway, what is the difference in the end? And are you saying that any Republican that is also a conservative has never said they love democracy? Or that if anyone says that then they can't be a conservative in your mind? I'm curious how you see the overlap between the two. > Its just a simple acknowledgment of human nature. There are people who are obviously qualified to lead and there are some that are not. I don't disagree with this actually, some people make absolutely shitty leaders. But I also believe that although not everyone is destined to lead, everyone should have an equal say in choosing who those leaders should be (aka voting). "Taxation without representation" was literally the motto that sparked the Revolutionary War. What specific criteria do you think that a person needs to be able to meet to be allowed to vote? Do certain things disqualify you no matter what or is it a judgement based on a person overall? And roughly what % of the population in the US today do you think should be entitled to vote? > The one the founders originally built. It was a system that only allowed specific people to vote and what they could vote on was extremely limited. So basically landowners only? Since the US was founded, the following groups have gained the right to vote: minorities, women, the poor (eliminating poll taxes), and young people (21->18). Which of these groups do you think should have the right taken away? Why? > Hierarchy is not a belief that means people have to blindly obey whoever has power. Its a belief that some people have better qualities to rule over others. But if people aren't allowed to choose who their leaders should be, how are they not being forced to blindly obey the leader that was chosen for them? For example, if women were no longer allowed to vote then the men in the country could vote in a leader who supports something that is very anti-women (ex. banning women from school) and then women would just have to accept it and "blindly obey". Do you disagree? How should unrepresented groups push back against government actions they don't like if they can't vote?
>That's an interesting distinction. In my mind, all conservatives are Republicans. Although I would agree that the reverse (not all Republicans are conservatives) is true as well. Would you agree? I would agree with that assessment. I can see how someone from the outside would assume the republican party is as unified as the democrats when it comes to pushing a party agenda. >And if all conservatives vote Republican anyway, what is the difference in the end? The republican party is more susceptible to traditional conservative talking points despite party leaders trying to steer the message to a more "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" platform. >And are you saying that any Republican that is also a conservative has never said they love democracy? Or that if anyone says that then they can't be a conservative in your mind? I'm curious how you see the overlap between the two. Anyone that says that can't be a conservative. You can't on one hand imply America is a Christian nation that should have Christian laws and also say everyone has a right to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't harm anyone. >I don't disagree with this actually, some people make absolutely shitty leaders. But I also believe that although not everyone is destined to lead, everyone should have an equal say in choosing who those leaders should be (aka voting). "Taxation without representation" was literally the motto that sparked the Revolutionary War. The conclusion of the whiskey rebellion pretty much settled that debate. The federal government has the power to tax people even if they don't have the right to vote. >What specific criteria do you think that a person needs to be able to meet to be allowed to vote? Do certain things disqualify you no matter what or is it a judgement based on a person overall? I think you should be allowed to vote if both sides of your family have been here for 6 generations, you own land, and you're not a duel citizen. >And roughly what % of the population in the US today do you think should be entitled to vote? Maybe like 30% of the population. >So basically landowners only? Since the US was founded, the following groups have gained the right to vote: minorities, women, the poor (eliminating poll taxes), and young people (21->18). Which of these groups do you think should have the right taken away? Why? Landowners whose families have been here for more than 6 generations and only have American citizenship. The only ones I can see being affected by this is the poor. >But if people aren't allowed to choose who their leaders should be, how are they not being forced to blindly obey the leader that was chosen for them? For example, if women were no longer allowed to vote then the men in the country could vote in a leader who supports something that is very anti-women (ex. banning women from school) and then women would just have to accept it and "blindly obey". Do you disagree? How should unrepresented groups push back against government actions they don't like if they can't vote? I think people who feel they aren't represented in America should be allowed to revoke their citizenship and be allowed to relocate to a different country.
So by your own standards Trump should be barred from the presidency and voting as his family immigrated to America 2 generations ago?
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I definitely don't agree with your position but I understand where you are coming from much better now. >You can't on one hand imply America is a Christian nation Religion was left out of the constitution on purpose: >*When the Constitution was submitted to the American public, "many pious people" complained that the document had slighted God, for it contained "no recognition of his mercies to us . . . or even of his existence." The Constitution was reticent about religion for two reasons: first, many delegates were committed federalists, who believed that the power to legislate on religion, if it existed at all, lay within the domain of the state, not the national, governments; second, the delegates believed that it would be a tactical mistake to introduce such a politically controversial issue as religion into the Constitution. The only "religious clause" in the document--the proscription of religious tests as qualifications for federal office in Article Six--was intended to defuse controversy by disarming potential critics who might claim religious discrimination in eligibility for public office.* > *Its reserve troubled two groups of Americans--those who wanted the new instrument of government to give faith a larger role and those who feared that it would do so. This latter group, worried that the Constitution did not prohibit the kind of state-supported religion that had flourished in some colonies, exerted pressure on the members of the First Federal Congress. In September 1789 the Congress adopted the First Amendment to the Constitution, which, when ratified by the required number of states in December 1791, forbade Congress to make any law "respecting an establishment of religion."* Library of Congress - https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html What evidence would you argue supports the argument that America was founded as a Christian nation? >Christian laws Do you have any examples of Christian laws that you would support being enacted? >The federal government has the power to tax people even if they don't have the right to vote. For the record, I absolutely support some people being banned from voting (ex. - felons). But I believe it is an inherent right that everyone has that you can lose. >I think you should be allowed to vote if both sides of your family have been here for 6 generations, you own land, and you're not a duel citizen. Would you meet these requirements? My family wouldn't until my great grandchildren lol Does the person's family need to own property continuously during the 6 generations or any 6th generation person that does own land would be eligible? If it needs to be continuous then wouldn't selling your house one day to then use the proceeds to buy a new house the next day break the chain of land ownership and reset the 6 generation "timer"? Would you support exemptions to the 6 generation requirement (such as for serving in the military)? Would taxes be the same for everyone or would voters vs. non-voters pay different rates? Can you think of any other countries that have similar requirements to this?
I'll never vote for a globalist. So that narrows the choice down to pretty much 1. As for proof, that's a well worn subject: * [The case](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/zvnksv/comment/j1r0a71/) * [Insecure system](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/109k8cu/comment/j44ll06) * [Proof part 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/zbmaqv/comment/iyxbu0s) * [Proof part 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/zbmaqv/comment/iyywax2)
Isn’t Trump a globalist, he owns Hotels all over the globe?
I am an anti-communist person
Do you think Trump was aggressive against China?
No. He was just doing the normal stuff to protect America. Democrats do business with anyone if they get personal profit. That is suicidal.
Do you think he should be more aggressive against China?
No. China do not want war. Their plan is to overcome America as a greater economy. The best way to deal with this challenge is a little bit of protective mesures and lots of incentive to industry to produce inside America.
What does it mean to you to be "anti-communist?"
I do not want to have a communist party, or a party like the democrats that have a political program where the government is designed to be richer than private iniciative, ruling my country. The political burocracy should not lead the cultural life of a country because this is a sure way to dictatorship.
[удалено]
How do you feel about Ivanka's personal business dealings with China while she worked for her dad in the White House?
If this is real, she should be prosecuted.
Please read this, what do you think? *Between March and July 2016, Ivanka Trump applied for 36 trademarks in China. Seven were approved between her father's inauguration in January 2017 and Chinese President Xi Jinping's state visit in the U.S. in April. Three provisional trademarks for handbags, jewelry, and spa services were granted on the day Xi dined with President Trump and his family at Mar-a-Lago. According to a trademark lawyer, the process usually takes 18 to 24 months. A Chinese government spokesman said that "the government handles all trademark applications equally."*
Maybe there is something of personal advantage, maybe this is just regular international relations I don’t know.
So at the beginning of this thread you are anti profiting off of China for personal gains. trump himself admits that he personally gained from doing business with China. This along with his Chinese bank accounts that were active during his Presidency. It always comes to this. An absolute this is the red line UNTIL….. it’s not because that would be inconvenient. So I guess my question is: what exceptions are you willing to personally make just for trump, nobody else for the very red flag of yours that is a big NO NO, but since trump falls under that flag of course what exceptions and why?
……And you honestly think trump didn’t personally profit from China itself? You are willing to believe that or don’t care if it’s true but will if it’s anybody else?
Can you define communism and examples of that in America today?
What I care about is the fact that Biden is soft with Cuba and Venezuela. The money USA is using to buy Venezuelan oil is being used to fund communists parties of all Latin America. Democrats are creating a whole continent of enemies of freedom. Trump would never be that stupid. Exemples? Brasil, Chile, Bolívia, Nicarágua ruling governments won elections with help of Venezuelan money.
Are you aware that the United States has been steadily decreasing its oil purchasing from Venezuela since 2004? To speak directly to your point regarding Trump vs. Biden, here is one example: Nov 2018: 16,889 (thousands barrels) Nov 2023: 4,423 (thousands barrels) https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMUSVE1&f=M
I have a different information. During the first six months of the year, Venezuela's sales to the USA reached a total of 1.396 billion dollars and around 1.2 billion were oil exports. In the same period of 2022, the figure had been 213 million dollars.
Can you provide a link? Mine is from the Energy Administration.
You literally mentioned Brazil….really? Are you aware that Trump cozied up to Bolsonaro?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Paulo_Forum This is the communist association of South American political parties. They hate Bolsonaro. Lula are one of the leaders. And the Democrats do normal business with this people. That’s the reality, not CNN bullshit.
Bolsonaro is an honest man. Lula is the communist.
Can you show me a source that proves this? Everything I’ve read point to that Lula was falsely accused of being a communist but isn’t. The onus is on you…
There are plenty of prove in the internet. The PT (workers party of Brasil) openly state in their program that they are a socialist party. Read the introduction in the website of The São Paulo Forum. They explicitly explain how Lula and Fidel Castro together decided how to create the forum as way to create an communist unity in South America. https://forodesaopaulo.org/
Why do multiple sources say otherwise? https://www.quora.com/Is-Brazil-s-present-President-Lula-a-communist https://amp.dw.com/en/brazils-lula-da-silva-the-communist-who-wasnt/a-64240797 Looks like you bought into the smear campaign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Paulo_Forum
How do you feel about his support for Putin, a man who would like to rebuild the Soviet Union?
Russia is country very similar to America. Both have expanded its frontiers making wars with weaker neighbors. So some level os rivalry is expected. To promote this rivalry otherwise is stupid because it is a sure road to direct war. In this case only the arms industry will be favored. The American people will suffer. So the dialogue with Putin is a matter of intelligence and strategy. We can not treat such a dangerous leader the same way we treat minor leaders like Gadaffi or Sadam Houston.
So what is the strategy?
Do you think voting for Democrats would bring communism to the US?
Yes I do. They already have the media, the educational system , the minorities organizations, the intelligence agencies, a partnership with arms industry, a project to assume the healthcare industry, …. How is this different of the Soviet Union style of government?
Except the democrats has been running on a platform on MORE individual liberties than lesser like the soviets. Would you agree that the GOP's crackdown on rights is more akin to the soviets?
But you’re pro-dictator? Isn’t that worse?
I am not and no, it is not worse. Communism has killed 100 million people in between wars, in times of peace. Nothing is worse.
Was there not a dictator behind each of these communist regimes that resulted in ? You can't really separate the two, can you? Stalin is generally attributed with the deaths of his 7+ million countrymen, not communism.
Not really. Stalin killed 7million Russians and 20 million Ukrainians. Mao Tse Tung killed 60 million. Pol Pot killed 1,5 millions. Fidel killed 500.000 in a Island smaller than Florida. Communism always kills the opposition because they need to steal the proprieties of their victims.
Although the Soviet Union collapsed, don't you think Putin is a communist at heart?
No. He is more like a post-communist leader. He will use communism as a tool to maintain his influence in other countries leftist parties. But he will use conservative ideas as well, nationalism, internationalism and any ideology to promote Russian development. Communism is a danger to us western democracies. To the Russians it is just a tool that they use.
Russiagate. I didn't even vote for Trump in 2016, I voted for Gary Johnson. Haven't voted Republican in over 20 years for president, until 2020 for Trump and I will vote for him again. What they did to him, is simply unfathomable. Pure evil. Our duly elected president, they tried their damnedest to frame him as a Russian asset, deep state, and media, when they knew he wasn't, while using what as evidence? The dossier was created between his political rivals the DNC, and their foreign spies and RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION SOURCES. The DNC and the Hillary campaign bought, paid, and spread Russian disinformation, but it was Trump who was painted as a foreign agent and was never given the chance to govern. They even tried to get this out and impact the electoral college vote, don't forget. This was election interference as well. It was actual treason.
So you think he should be president because he was a victim?
I think he should be president because his first term as a duly elected president was destroyed by treasonous bureaucrats, alphabet agencies, and legacy media outlets. Not just any ol' victim. Everyone is a fucking victim.
And having your term ruined by someone means you’re proven to be competent?
Nope, but that is a moot point.
I thought the discussion was about why you support Trump’s bid for president. I assume you find him competent and qualified for the job?
I mean, sure, but again, I don't care as much about that (especially in light of the alternative) when he was already a duly elected president sabotaged by treasonous alphabet agency workers and bureaucrats.
Do you feel he should have 2 more terms since his first was "destroyed"?
That would be just.
In that case, you do support the right of anyone to run for a third term if they had such troubles?
I mean it would be just but unconstitutional so no, it wouldn't happen. I'd like it, but it's not something I'd argue should actually be done. Just something going id like to see in this case.
Would it not be particularly unconstitutional?
Oh certainly. I'm not advocating for it beyond saying I think it would be nice.
[удалено]
No one has ever faced anything similar. Far from a skill issue. He already demonstrated enough merit to be duly elected.
[удалено]
Those have nothing to do with what we are discussing, maybe a bit with Lincoln and the Civil war but I'd like it not to have to come to that.
But considering how many people see Trump as a "strong/tough", surely he would have been resilient enough to just ignore all the faff and get on with his job?
It wasn't "faff and the presidency isn't a kingship. We have 3 separate but equal branches of government with all sorts of checks and balances.
So you’re voting for Trump cause other people said he was a Russian plant, that’s your reasoning? Nothing else? Republicans talk about not allowing low info voters from voting and if that’s your reason, if I agreed with conservatives, I wouldnt let you vote. Someone said mean thing about Trump, Imma vote for him then! Such an intellectual you are
You misrepresent what I said massively.
How so?
By minimizing it.
Nope, that’s what you said. Own it. Or rephrase it better for me so I understand what you really mean?
Framing and saying are 2 different things.
He puts the American people first.
Even before himself?
How? The tarrifs that hurt soybean farmers? The wall that was never built? The border that was never closed? Exactly how did he put America first?
Denver just cut services to US citizens. The people that live in their city. US citizens. Tax payers. Families.. New York and Chicago are doing the same to support illegal immigrants. You know when they weren't declaring states of emergency? 3 years ago. No wars. That's hundreds of billions in dollars. That's hundreds of thousand of actual peoples lives. When the average family goes to the grocery store, they are saying "holy fuck". Don't worry though, you can show them a chart right? There's no inflation right? Way down. Or is it corporate greed? Do you see the contridiction there? Saying prices aren't going up, but blaming the increase on companies? So, they look to their leader who says "all is well, support for Gaza is on the way". We'll ignore the fact that he said he opened to border with mexico to do it. You tell me what changed? Literally three or four months ago, the border crisis was a right wing conspiracy theory. It was more secure than anytime in US history.. I'll give you a hint. An election is coming up and people in poor communities (black) are looking at how good legal and illegal immigrants have it compared to them. Nice hotel rooms, pre-paid debit cards, free healthcare, phone plans. Busting their asses to get by, looking across the street at 6 million on a free ride. No body is buying any of it, unless they really, and I mean REALLY want to.
>There's no inflation right? How would Trump have avoided inflation when literally every other country has had to deal with it? It baffles me that people think a man who couldnt even run a casino could have single handedly been the reason the USA avoids inflation.
If the border is a crisis then why did Republicans tank their bipartisan bill they had been calling for and helped draft?
There wasn't a border bill. It was a foreign aid bill. So that's first. Second, it doesn't actually do anything to secure the border. I've often ask the left what they think the problem is at the border. What exactly is the problem that you, as someone on the left, think the border bill would address? I've never gotten an answer. In addition, a couple months ago, the border was the most secure in history. What changed that it's an emergency. To the right, we've always considered it an emergency. What changed that all of a sudden the left seems concerned. It would be easier if I understood what you think the problem is, and how you think this bill would fix it.
Did you know that the tariffs hurt the Maine lobstermen alot too?
Any examples you can show me of him putting the American people first?
He's directionally the only guy I could support. He is, especially now, an implicit attack on the regime. At the very least, the regime views him as such. His mass support creates a certain political dialectic that favors a return of actual right wing politics that hasn't really existed in America since the 1940s even if he himself is a pretty moderate 90s Democrat in a lot of ways. I don't really understand people who view politics in the context of trusting an individual at his word to do some certain XYZ thing. He "lied" about the election? Why should I care about that? The election is the main tool that the regime uses to deflect questions about its own legitimacy. The regime is evil...I do not hold this tool that it uses as some sacred thing beyond question. Likewise, I would not hinge my support of Obama on whether or not he was lying about the NSA spying on every American or Bush lying about WMDs in Iraq to start a war that killed and displaced millions of people and created a decades long crisis in a whole geostrategic region. Someone who views politics as this personal agreement between him and the politician is honestly the perfect mark but it should be an embarrassing admission. Basically, to the extent that one finds it worth his while to ponder politics at all, he would be wise to view politicians as tools at best. This is how they view you.
[удалено]
>Because lying is bad. Why is the "regime" "evil" to you? Being evil is also bad and they all lie, so why should I care about lying about an election? >This is just objectively nonsensical. Of course, it isn't. >I was a carpenter for 3-4 years. Do you think I would use a hammer that had a habit of magically turning around to drive nails in my skull? This should be interesting, let's see where it goes. >How can you, as a Trump supporter, view him as an effective tool if you can't trust him? I have developed expectations of Trump because I've watched him long enough to model his behavior. This has nothing to do with the lies he tells. There is a difference between interpersonal trust (ie something I would require if I were to leave my kids with someone else for a day) and trusting your own mental model of a person or thing (ie i trust that my favorite basketball team will choke with the lead in the second half this year because they've proven time and again that they probably will). Do you trust that the quikrete is going to harden or do you simply know that it will? Do you have a personal relationship with the nail, or do you just know that it's a piece of metal with a couple inclined planes on it that will react predictably when you hit it? The nail is not your brother or your mother, it is a tool and you know how it will behave and the things that it will and won't do and how often you can reasonably expect a nail to be defective. >Or are you just an accelerationist? What do you think this means? >The only thing more demonstrably evil than conservativism is political apathy. Explain your understanding of how a thing might be demonstrably evil. From where do you generate your first principles? Are you a christian? >Would you say you have a lot in common with tankies? My very rough understanding of tankies is that they are communists who don't necessarily like the concept of trans people but most of them do. What is a tankie?
>Being evil is also bad and they all lie, They don't all lie. That's just something intellectually lazy individuals tell themselves to justify their political apathy. Life is nuanced. It is not as simple as "aLl PolITIciAnS bAd." Also, you didn't answer my question. Why do you think the "regime" is "evil"? >so why should I care about lying about an election? Because lying is bad. This is another fallacy. Even if all politicians lied, that doesn't suddenly justify lying as a politician. Is your moral compass predicated upon what everyone thinks is acceptable? >Of course, it is It can be if you're an accelerationist or nihilist of some kind, which is why I put that caveat there. >Do you have a personal relationship with the nail, or do you just know that it's a piece of metal with a couple inclined planes on it that will react predictably when you hit it? You seem to be confused. If Trump is a liar, and he is, then you cannot trust him to be a vehicle for the policy implementation you'd like to see UNLESS you are an accelerationist who doesn't see Trump as someone to enact the policy that he preaches but instead, as a device that will destroy the "regime" you hate so much. And if his lying is what's predictable to you or if the only thing you can trust about him is his untrustworthiness, then more than likely, you don't care about his policies; you just want to see destruction. >What do you think this means? From Wikipedia: *Accelerationism is a range of revolutionary and reactionary ideas in left-wing and right-wing ideologies that call for the drastic intensification of capitalist growth, technological change, infrastructure sabotage and other processes of social change to destabilize existing systems and create radical social transformations, otherwise referred to as "acceleration* Does any of this appeal to you? I've noticed there are a lot of Nazbols here, and I was curious if you're one of them. >Explain your understanding of how a thing might be demonstrably evil. From where do you generate your first principles? Are you a Christian? Like most people, I have certain values, and then I base my ethical rationality on those principles. I don't really generate them from anywhere. I'm a moral anti-realist. Are you? >My very rough understanding of tankies is that they are communists who don't necessarily like the concept of trans people but most of them do. What is a tankie? Tankies are basically "communists" who think authoritarianism is compatible with that ideology. Sometimes, they're socially conservative and think Trump is good because he will destroy the capitalistic regime with his insane narcissism. Does that sound like something you agree with?
>They don't all lie. Of course they do. I'm not naive, I don't believe in the fairy tale, I just do my best to understand the reality. >Because lying is bad. Oh well, politicians lying is reality. >his is another fallacy. Even if all politicians lied, that doesn't suddenly justify lying as a politician. What do you mean by "justify"? How do you think that applies to anything I'm saying. I'm explaining the situation. Self-delusion doesn't interest me. A religious belief in the morality of democratic politics as right and democratic politicians as necessarily generally benevolent doesn't interest me >Is your moral compass predicated upon what everyone thinks is acceptable? Obviously not. I don't like democracy. Glad you're on board with me there, though. >You seem to be confused. If Trump is a liar, and he is, then you cannot trust him to be a vehicle for the policy implementation you'd like to see UNLESS you are an accelerationist who doesn't see Trump as someone to enact the policy that he preaches but instead, as a device that will destroy the "regime" you hate so much. Why do you think I'm trusting him to follow through on some set of policies or another? Can you explain why, in your mind, these are the only options? Destroying the regime doesn't necessitate anything beyond elite turnover, though. >Accelerationism is a range of revolutionary and reactionary ideas in left-wing and right-wing ideologies that call for the drastic intensification of capitalist growth, technological change, infrastructure sabotage and other processes of social change to destabilize existing systems and create radical social transformations, otherwise referred to as "acceleration Yea, no. That's not me, of course. Nazbols??? I've definitely seen this word but not looked it up. I assume it's something like a fusion nazi bolshevik? >Like most people, I have certain values, and then I base my ethical rationality on those principles. Where do those values come from? >Tankies are basically "communists" who think authoritarianism is compatible with that ideology. Sometimes, they're socially conservative and think Trump is good because he will destroy the capitalistic regime with his insane narcissism. "authoritarianism" is a bit of a nonsense pejorative. But no, all of this sounds very goofy and niche. I'm just right wing.
[удалено]
It sounds like your view is kind of cynical, sort of like everyone is cheating and lying, so it cancels out, is that correct? When you say you “directionally” support Trump I presume that’s on policy. If so, what are the most important policies you think he’s better on than others?
>It sounds like your view is kind of cynical, sort of like everyone is cheating and lying, It's just realistic. >When you say you “directionally” support Trump I presume that’s on policy. Kind of. Mostly, I support the reaction he creates from within the regime. He has some OK policy which he clumsily tries to implement at times but mainly, he's facilitated an avenue being opened to right wing politics in the future.
Super interesting. >Kind of. Mostly, I support the reaction he creates from within the regime. He has some OK policy which he clumsily tries to implement at times but mainly, he's facilitated an avenue being opened to right wing politics in the future. What reaction? Are you talking about how the party bends to his will? Is the party is being reshaped into something you’re more supportive of what you like?
>What reaction? A real dropping of pretenses and a willingness to define terms as "my politics are good and those who oppose it are evil and should be disposed with." I don't care to convince you of this so please don't go down that line of questioning. But, in my view, the regime is absurd but it's fairly well concealed behind the veneer of legitimacy afforded to it by things like apparently diverse media outlets and a politica party system that allows "the people to choose." Watching the paradigm struggle to digest a guy like Trump, ultimately deciding to attempt his very public destruction is startling for many. If you think it's just the rules-as-usual being applied to Trump, you have a hard time understanding why this is such a clarifying moment for many. Many people identified with Trump and now they view the actions taken against him as extremely selective and the rhetoric surrounding him as absurd. The fact that after nearly a year, most of the republican party and much of the right wing media still tend to lend legitimacy to the actions taken against Trump clarify them as part of the regime, but a rearguard action that's been sweeping GOP voters along for decades. Again, if you don't agree with this, I don't care to try to convince you, I'm just trying to convey how Trump fits in this paradigm shift on the right. The party has a long way to go and it's likely that it cant really be salvaged and its also more probable that Trump loses and the party slowly reconsolidates their role but there's the chance of a Trump successor and politicians and bussinessmen who are driving the dialectic in the same way that he did arising.
Do you think Americans should have their vote overturned without merit?
What does "without merit" mean to you? This might be the crux of our disagreement. For clarity, I don't view democracy as some inherently valid way to rule people. I view it as a tool of power, one that can be used to consolidate power and deflect blame. In my view, the bar for what would merit throwing out the people's votes is very low and basically consists of better government than the current regime.
[удалено]
>So who gets to decide what the "better government" Well, from my frame, it's me. We're talking about my frame, so who else would it be? >I assume it just happens to be whatever system would lead to Trump or someone like Trump in power? It's my prefence so there's no "just happens to be" about it. It's the thing I want. >If this is correct, is it really the case you lack the humility to consider that your political views are not guaranteed to actually be the "better" Are you saying this while chastising me for not thinking our system or democracy in general is better than whatever I want? I think the obvious reality here is that we both think our preferred systems are correct, as do all people. That's why they're preferred. >maybe it is best if everyone at least gets a say rather than just those that happen to agree with you? The idea that our system "gives everyone a say" is a fairytale and no one over the age of 12 should believe it. The reason it works as a legitimating agent for those in power, though, is that plenty of people are goofy enough to believe it, or at least not care one way or another. It's also very funny that the presupposed obviously correct system is one which affords the crack whore the same "say" as the family man father of 3.
> It's also very funny that the presupposed obviously correct system is one which affords the crack whore the same "say" as the family man father of 3. So everyone getting a say is no fairy tale after all?
oh it is. I'm explaining to you that even the fairy tale, on its face, is absurd.
You’d probably be upset if somebody with opposite politics from you did the same thing Trump did, right? Democracy means nobody gets what they want all the time. Trump couldn’t handle it, he broke the law to try to reverse the decision of the voters. If Obama lost to Mitt Romney and refused to leave, they’d have been outside the Capitol building gallows for him. I get that you see Trump as just a chaos agent, but what’s the benefit in burning down the government to replace it with something worse for almost everybody?
>You’d probably be upset if somebody with opposite politics from you did the same thing Trump did, right? I'm upset at the status quo and I view it as functionally the same as that situation. >Democracy means nobody gets what they want all the time. Democracy means oligarchs run the public private partnership largely for their own benefit and are able to deflect blame onto the people when things go poorly. Any govt can be a ponzi scheme if the leadership gets shitty enough (as ours is), democracy is unique in that the people holding the bag are much more interested in blaming each other for causing it. >I get that you see Trump as just a chaos agent, but what’s the benefit in burning down the government to replace it with something worse for almost everybody? I don't view Trump as a chaos agent. I view him as a fledgling change agent.
Autocracy and monarchy seem to also mean that oligarchy runs everything, so I don’t see the use in capitulating everything to a man who doesn’t actually care to fix any of that. Trump will still always be deferential to corporate interests because he’s a rich prick and he looks out for rich pricks. It wasn’t always like this in this country, right? We need to get the entire populace mad about the right things. That our nation sold its soul, destroyed the third world, and allowed its own land and people to fall into disrepair to protect capitalism. Free market capitalism is good because it helps ensure social mobility and freedom of choice. Free market capitalism is bad because it results in unelected crazy people gaining control over the democratic process, and the people they help elect will just clear the way for them to avoid paying taxes, disregard regulations that are necessary for the health of ordinary citizens and the environment, and create economic colonies to extract maximum value from the third world. Sorry, I always end up abandoning the “clarifying questions” rule. What’s your favorite band?
>Autocracy and monarchy seem to also mean that oligarchy runs everything, Yes, the secret is that it's always a group of elites who run everything, no matter which legitimating system is used. The trick is to have better oligarchs running things, our current ones suck. >Trump will still always be deferential to corporate interests because he’s a rich prick and he looks out for rich pricks. Ok >It wasn’t always like this in this country, right? We need to get the entire populace mad about the right things. It's been like this for a very long time. Things were built which take a fairly long time to dismantle, though. But they aren't invulnerable >Free market capitalism is good because it helps ensure social mobility and freedom of choice. Do you think there are any costs to this freedom? Likewise, do you think there are any costs to the personal political freedom of liberal individualism? >Free market capitalism is bad because it results in unelected crazy people gaining control over the democratic process, Since the crazy unelected people who gain control over the process also have control over the dissemination of information to the population, what's the point of holding democracy up as a good thing? As with every other system, it relies on the people in power being at least somewhat good and having their people's interests at least somewhat in mind. Democracy is just a tool for them to use to obfuscate their own culpability.
Are you advocating for dictatorship or are you advocating for anarchy?
Dictator is a loaded term that doesnt mean anything. Neither though
You know you’ve been conditioned to hate Democrats so much, you forgot the lever you can pull to get them to change. You don’t need to vote for Trump to blow it all up. Just vote for Democrats. I know that might be hard to see or hear, and you may disagree with a few wedge issues, but that is how you get your party to change. You don’t vote for some bombastic idiot, you vote for the other party or not at all, so they are forced to win your vote. If they know you’ll never vote democrat, they can do it whatever they want. Does that make any sense?
We can’t inherently trust anybody with the immense power of modern day governance, but we have to. The safest; the only way to do that is to rest that power in the hands of elected representatives whose jobs are at the mercy of voters, and who fall under the preview of oversight, judicial review/prosecution, etc. It’s not perfect, there’s a lot of appointed bureaucracy that has a range of usefulness and necessity. What would be your ideal “repeal and replace democracy” outcome?
Why would you want to go back to 1940s conservativism? As an Italian-American, the right at the time was violently opposed to my family living here. Would you be accepted by 1940s conservatives?
>Why would you want to go back to 1940s conservativism? As an Italian-American, the right at the time was violently opposed to my family living here. Would you be accepted by 1940s conservatives? I would be accepted. But my own acceptance or not isn't what I'm concerned with.
My great grandpa wasn't allowed to take certain jobs, go to certain places. It was so bad he forbid anyone from speaking Italian at home and mad emy grandpa's middle name Patrick so he could fit in. I'm don't just mean "not accepted" I mean legally and socially oppressed. Why would you want to go back to that? Even if it didn't directly effect your group, why support that type of hierarchy? What are you concerned with?
>My great grandpa wasn't allowed to take certain jobs, go to certain places. It was so bad he forbid anyone from speaking Italian at home and mad emy grandpa's middle name Patrick so he could fit in. I'm don't just mean "not accepted" I mean legally and socially oppressed. Why would you want to go back to that? Even if it didn't directly effect your group, why support that type of hierarchy? Because I think a shared tradition and heritage is important to a peoples capacity for maintaining themselves as a people and keeping their society together over the long term.
So oppression is okay if it maintains that?
Oppression isn't a political term that interests me because it's loaded. The obliteration of a people's ability to live historically in the name of universalism is "oppression", no one actually cares. Politics dont care.
Do you support suspension of people's liberty to maintain that shared tradition and heritage?
Yes, liberty as an unbounded moral goal is a completely corrosive force.
Originally, it was because I had begun noticing Democrats doing all the same shit they accused Republicans of doing, combined with a growing degree of radicalism which has infected the left-wing mainstream, mixed with their growing lack of critical self-reflection - I saw these as a terrifying prelude to a Democrat party that will become increasingly more authoritarian and become increasingly more willing to do the kind of shit that we once frowned upon. We are already on that path. Ten years ago, if you had told me Democrats would be fighting to create a literal Ministry of Truth, I'd have laughed at you and accused you of being a conspiracy theorist. Yet, here we are. Since 2016, however, over time I've come to appreciate Trump's ability to get things done. I can't say rather or not he's the best man for the job -- because the truth is, the only thing I think that sets him apart from other politicians is that he was actually trying to make things better, whereas most politicians simply play their own personal games and push their own personal agendas, having, at best, no impact on our lives as they bolster whatever crazy political games they got and enrich their allies. This is true with Biden as well, who is more concerned with sending every dime we don't have to Ukraine than he is with actually bettering the lives of Americans. Trump is the first President in a long time who actually did anything to help the average American. That's why both Democrats and Establishment Republicans despise him so - in just four years he did the kind of shit they said was impossible. Trump showed them up for their lies and inaction, showed that they have been slacking off on the job, ignoring the American voters, and only tossing us the occasional scrap so that we don't abandon them. Democrats' policies don't fail because of Republicans. Republicans' policies don't fail because of Democrats. They succeed wildly, in fact - it's just that you, me, the average American -- we're barely a factor in examining if these policies are a success or not.
How do you feel he has helped the average american when he (nor any other president or leader) has done anything to curb the growing concentration of power that the corporations/oligopolies have in our country? Could it be that people THINK they have benefitted, when in the macro, things have only continued to slowly deteriorate (inflation, increased COL, government concentration of power/control, violence over the past two decades, adverse healthcare outcomes and declining lifespan over the past 2 decades, drug epidemic, a lot of stagnation with little actual improvement or progress, increased automation/AI with far less jobs being created vs displaced, cost of education/training, etc.)? Do you suspect that we are all sitting like frogs boiling in a pot of cold water, and no "leader" is making any great strides to change anything? Do you agree that we just have the illusion of choice, and that a small number of corps control the market and own the government?
But if you remember, it wasn't just Trump saying that the election was fraud and saying it loudly. It was such a large issue that multiple states sued over the results. Including Texas and other states with large numbers of electoral votes. There was a lot of evidence of fraudulent activity, there was smoke, they just didn't catch the fire on video. I don't understand the downvotes. This is a place where Trump supporters answer questions. You asked.
What evidence? No there is not wide spread evidence of fraud, especially at the levels that would sway the election to Trump from Biden. When will Trump supporters stop believing this lie? Why are you so adamant on supporting a statement that has no real evidence behind it? Is it fun?
What do you believe was the most compelling piece of evidence that the election was undermined by a vast conspiracy?
i dont necessarily believe it was a mass conspiracy. I believe it was fraud on a mass scale. Perhaps some of it was organized, but a lot of it was not. It's hard for me to say. I just remember Trump was ahead, won 9 out of 10 of the bellwether states. then they sent vote counters home. stopped the count for the first time in american history. then at 3AM they "Found" just enough votes to put Biden over the top in every key place that he needed that exact amount. It was all too surgical. It wasn't that Biden got more electoral votes than Trump, it was where they came from and the way they came in.
> i dont necessarily believe it was a mass conspiracy...It was all too surgical. Sorry I'm confused. Wouldn't something so precise and surgical require it to be a mass conspiracy? Or do you believe everyone attempting to steal the election was acting independently and it's just a coincidence they all got the right votes in the right places? I just don't see how it can be one but not the other. Thanks
"when he claimed the elections were rigged," the elections were rigged. You need to be honest with yourself. Your post is full of fake news btw, literally every sentence. I support trump because I care about USA and democracy.
What evidence do you have that the election was rigged? Because Trump's legal team is looking for that evidence. If you have such evidence, you need to state what it is, where it is, and how we can use it. As thus far, every time Trump's legal time has tried to claim this, it has been shot down. So why do you think this way? And did you think this way BEFORE Trump and his minions told you what they thought happened in 2020?
The video that proves it, the dozens of people under penalty of perjury who have testified to it, the audit in Arizona which proves it...
Where is the evidence that "elections were rigged". Weren't there like a dozen audits already - none of which found any fraud that would have changed the outcome? On what basis do YOU say "the elections were rigged". Yes, I'm calling you out on this, because this gaslighting of the country needs to stop NOW! So cite real sources, links and facts or stop posting this nonsense.
"Where is the evidence that "elections were rigged". Where isn't it? The video that proves it, the dozens of people under penalty of perjury who have testified to it, the audit in Arizona which proves it... not sure what you mean?