Trump Supporter's I got a serious legit question for you.

[CostinR]

What does Trump have to do in order for you to not support him anymore?

Not trolling,baiting or whatever you wish to call it. I am 100% serious.

Depends on why someone supported Trump in the first place.

For some it's how he pisses off the right people in their minds: They not only accept Trump's behavior, they embrace said behavior, for others it's his policy positions be it on an immigration, trade, economic or foreign policy level.

What's a red line depends on the person in question. Some, like myself, might be annoyed when he goes over the line with some of the things he says like attacking Comey or when he abandons his campaign promises to push a Republican establishment domestic agenda but that doesn't mean we'll stop supporting him, and maybe it's just me but since when is supporting a politician equal to you agree and endorse everything he or she does? What is Trumpism a religion now? Must I bow to the Altar of the GOP and Pray to Lord Trump for salvation to qualify as a supporter. Laughable.

My red line is on foreign policy: If Trump starts another moronic, narrow minded, stupid war driven by "human rights" or "spreading democracy" in the Middle East he can rightly fuck off, oh and that includes Iran by the way. Don't care how heated the rhetoric is though, it can be cool or scorching hot, as long as continues down the present course he'll be fine...if he changes though it will go badly.

[Felya]

When some people realize that Bush did none of those things.

Who is saying Bush did those things?

[Deleted]

He'd have to stop being a middle ground President with fairly sane stances on Immigration.

[Felya]

Then they would argue that Trump is playing 3d chess.

Nothing he can say or do will lose him significant support from the rabid right. Sure that few % of the voters that voted him in power will be disgusted but they where just idiots and not real supporters.

-3D chess... Barbados has opened Earth 0 to be accessed from the dark multiverse. We have evil invading from negative dimensions. How does this relate to playing chess? Don’t ask me... I’m not a stable genius...

- - - Updated - - -

He'd have to stop being a middle ground President with fairly sane stances on Immigration.

When did the conservative take over stop? Wasn’t this supposed to be s big symbol of how conservative values have returned? When did it become the middle?

[PC2]

What does Trump have to do in order for you to not support him anymore?

I voted Trump. I would list three things Trump would have to do.

1. Raise net taxes
2. Create new regulations without getting rid of multiple others.
3. Weaken border policy.

So far Trump is middling on #3 and I wouldn't vote for him again if he does mass amnesty. But I do think he is trying to get illegal crossings down further. I wouldn't say he is bad like Hillary would've been, just that I think Republicans need to put more pressure on Trump to push harder on border policy. Also we need to learn from recent Israeli policies which pay civilians $9k if they choose to help deport illegals.

[Deleted]

When did the conservative take over stop? Wasn’t this supposed to be s big symbol of how conservative values have returned? When did it become the middle?

When Trump was shown to be a very obvious Populist who holds very centrist views in mind. I mean honestly, Trump isn't removing anything apart from weird overly leftist things like DACA and other stupid things the democrats passed.

[Vankrys]

i don't think they think the republicans support Trump per se. They endure him while he's pushing the republicans agenda.

Trump has no room to maneuver in the political game, he used all his get out of jail free card. He has to follow the republican party guidelines otherwise his already shrinking base would turn on him. In that sense, he is just a puppet the republicans tolerate. Because of his lack of political experience, he was probably an easy puppet to manipulate.

[Felya]

When Trump was shown to be a very obvious Populist who holds very centrist views in mind. I mean honestly, Trump isn't removing anything apart from weird overly leftist things like DACA and other stupid things the democrats passed.

Oh... so only when you are honest, he isn’t middle... fair enough...

[Mad_Murdock]

Ya but I figured I would try to make a actual serious thread asking it.

This is the wrong forum to ask that question and get many actual answers. You knew you would get more answers from Trump haters than supporters.

[Theodarzna]

Obama tried his best to help his arguments were sound, while Republicans have always made it worse for consumers since Bush era.

Obama tried his best? By forgiving the banks and mostly prosecuting homeowners..... >.>

I have a question, why is your username Szechuan?

- - - Updated - - -

So trying to balance the budget by Helping those in need and trying to improve society while keeping the Rich and Powerful in Check is bad because of Budgetary reasons?

Of which Obama did little of. The budget is crazed, he lobbied to give the Rich and Powerful anything they wanted including TPP/TTIP, and he forgave them for 2008. Man the Mythology of Obama is impressive.

- - - Updated - - -

The US has been relying a lot on immigration for a long time to pad its demographics, and they seem to be doing just fine. Not like immigration only happens from Trump's so-called ''shitholes'' anyway, even Americans and Europeans themselves emigrate.

And stripping the planet of resources? What is this, Fallout? There's more than enough room for a modern society and consumption so long as we're a teeny bit smart about it. Oil will run out I guess, but not anytime soon, and by then we'll probably have figured out alternate energy sources. Not like Europe-style societies are the worst offenders when it comes to resource consumption anyway.

First, America has relied on immigration primarily because America exterminated most of the indigenous population that once lived here.

Second, reliance on immigration works only in-so-far as you have sources to harvest people from.

Third, Awh, Blaize optimism.... "Don't worry, go to sleep, it will all be fine!" some answer.

[PC2]

First, America has relied on immigration primarily because America exterminated most of the indigenous population that once lived here.

Nah it was germs that did most of the exterminating. Only a small percent of immigrants intentionally killed Amerindians.

[Theodarzna]

Nah it was germs that did most of the exterminating. Only a small percent of immigrants intentionally killed Amerindians.

But kill they did. Fun fact about California. You could legally hunt natives and the State would pay you per scalp, once more the great progressive state of California had active death squads seeking their annihilation. Also, who brought the germs here?

[Blade Wolf]

But kill they did. Fun fact about California. You could legally hunt natives and the State would pay you per scalp, once more the great progressive state of California had active death squads seeking their annihilation. Also, who brought the germs here?

Should the sins of the ancestors haunt the current population of California?

[Theodarzna]

Should the sins of the ancestors haunt the current population of California?

It's a mixed bag. On the one hand, it is the wicked little secret that lay at the core of some of the more pretentious notions about America. For example, the pithy phrase "We are a nation of immigrants" which is often uttered like a mantra; but ignores the wickedness that produced a land fit for waves of immigrants from elsewhere. The horror is difficult to stomach or dwell on for too long, but in many ways this melting pot nation, this land of immigrants owes its existence to a cruel and ghastly act of genocide that cleared the land and from their dispossession the land of immigrants was born. This fact isn't often thought about when people use America as a model for immigrantion, the sin that preceded it and made it all possible can't be forgotten.

But, nothing can raise the dead. I think the simple fact of it happening will haunt people if they dwell on it.

[PC2]

But kill they did. Fun fact about California. You could legally hunt natives and the State would pay you per scalp, once more the great progressive state of California had active death squads seeking their annihilation. Also, who brought the germs here?

Roger that. Killing is bad, we outlawed that.

My point on the germs is that you can't blame most white migrants for that. Initially the mass plague was bad luck regarding the relative immune system. Then there were a few Machiavellian leaders who weaponized epidemiology. But it's not accurate to generalize it to the average person who was purely defensive.

[Theodarzna]

Roger that. Killing is bad, we outlawed that.

My point on the germs is that you can't blame most white migrants for that. Initially the mass plague was bad luck regarding the relative immune system. Then there were a few Machiavellian leaders who weaponized epidemiology. But it's not accurate to generalize it to the average person who was purely defensive.

Conveniently after they were dead. It is accurate to say their annihilation was core to creating the "Nation of Immigrants", and there is no way around that fact.

[Spectral]

Conveniently after they were dead. It is accurate to say their annihilation was core to creating the "Nation of Immigrants", and there is no way around that fact.

I'm more than a little skeptical of that claim. Estimate diverge, but there were something on the order of ~5 million natives in all of the North American in the pre-Columbian era. That doesn't strike me as a quantity that couldn't have coexisted with colonists if it had been a priority for natives and Europeans alike.

I will say that I think it's worth drawing some lessons about ethnic replacement from that era though...

[Theodarzna]

I'm more than a little skeptical of that claim. Estimate diverge, but there were something on the order of ~5 million natives in all of the North American in the pre-Columbian era. That doesn't strike me as a quantity that couldn't have coexisted with colonists if it had been a priority for natives and Europeans alike.

I will say that I think it's worth drawing some lessons about ethnic replacement from that era though...

So it's okay to invade and dispossess a population because it is small?

[Spectral]

So it's okay to invade and dispossess a population because it is small?

I'm not all that interested in whether it's OK or not. I'm saying that I don't think displacement was actually necessary - it was a choice that was made based on convenience. On net, I'm glad it happened because I think the world is a better place for having the United States exist for the past couple centuries, but I wouldn't actually make an argument in favor of displacement as a reasonable ethical choice.

Anyway, the specific statement I'm quibbling with is whether annihilation was core to creating the United States - I don't think it was necessary. Hard to test the counterfactual though.

[Theodarzna]

I'm not all that interested in whether it's OK or not. I'm saying that I don't think displacement was actually necessary - it was a choice that was made based on convenience. On net, I'm glad it happened because I think the world is a better place for having the United States exist for the past couple centuries, but I wouldn't actually make an argument in favor of displacement as a reasonable ethical choice.

Anyway, the specific statement I'm quibbling with is whether annihilation was core to creating the United States - I don't think it was necessary. Hard to test the counterfactual thought.

I think there is no version of the American story that would not involve displacement and dispossession. America as presently constituted could not exist without the horror that preceded it. AND once more, even if you argue that it wasn't necessary; you then have to reckon with the fact that the founders and foundation layers of this country DID choose that path if in your mind there was an alternative. I think that is rather handwavey. More over there is an uncomfortable utilitarianism in your words that in your mind the good America may or may not do makes past sins acceptable, as if their annihilation is just a necessary sacrifice. I don't think that really obsolves anything and if anything reveals more about you than it does about history.