Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

@datguy81

I live in North Carolina and in the middle of MAGA country around here and I can say definitively you are wrong.

The people that support him consist of those who let their mask slip some and are actively showing racist and fascist views while denying they are or based on their religious views and want to establish a caliphate of their own religion here which goes back to being fascist and the ones who CLAIM it’s due to his policies don’t know how things actually work or the impact those policies have.

They are all just different levels of racist, fascist, or ignorance the whole way down outside of a bunch of rich people who have no issues burning stuff down so long as they get more of the rubble since they will have enough to move before the impacts can actually hurt them.

I mean, they're currently furious about migrants taking all the FEMA money (they aren't) and are posing such a risk to FEMA employees that they're not even sending them to some parts of the state.

But clearly it's not that there are problems with misinformation and extremism within the MAGA base.

[masterhorus8]

It's ChatGPT sludge. Not worth responding to.

I was wondering about that as soon as I read it.

[Shadowferal]

“Trump boat parade flies Swastika flag, wears “Make America White Again” hats, and salutes, “Heil Trump! White Power!”

I see only one side here...

[Doomcookie]

The claim that anyone who voted for Trump after 2016 is "100% a racist, sexist, and/or nationalist" is an overgeneralization that doesn't account for the diverse reasons people may have for supporting a candidate. Voters often consider a range of issues such as economic policies, healthcare, taxation, foreign relations, and judicial appointments when making their decisions.

Many individuals may have supported Trump due to his stance on job creation, regulatory reforms, or conservative social values. Others might have believed that his policies better aligned with their views on government size or constitutional interpretation. It's also possible for voters to disagree with certain aspects of a candidate's behavior or rhetoric while still supporting them based on policy preferences.

Assigning negative labels to all supporters of a political figure can hinder productive dialogue and understanding. It's important to recognize that voters are a heterogeneous group with varied motivations, and blanket statements may oversimplify complex individual choices

You created an AI response to defend a felon.

[Poopymonster]

You created an AI response to defend a felon.

I'm curious how long until an AI goes "Are you fucking kidding me?" on this shit.

[Doomcookie]

Right Cause the last 4 years have been great. Of course, political personalities are quite understandable; nonetheless, one should stick to facts and the latest information. As of my cutoff in October 2023, Donald Trump has been issued multiple indictments but has not yet been convicted of any felony charges. The cases remain in courts, and due process is in order. Possibly, characterization of any person as only a "bad guy" too often simplifies complex legal and political problems. It is satisfying to take into consideration all information available and await the outcomes of legal procedures in order to come up with certain conclusions.

- - - Updated - - -



Dismissing the response without engaging with its content doesn't foster constructive dialogue. If there are specific points you'd like to discuss or challenge, I'm here to have that conversation.

No, ChatGPT is having the conversation.

Why would a human cutoff from that date?

[Draco-Onis]

Well Kamala better pull something out of the hat because the way things are going its going to be a Trump presidency.

I think we all understood that it was always going to be a toss up which is an improvement from Biden which was certain doom. If you want to look at the positive side of things imagine where we would be if Biden was still on the ticket as many insisted he stayed.

[Draco-Onis]

The crazy thing about that, I saw Biden giving a press conference the other day and he actually was pretty good in it, seemed very stable and was even having some jokes with the press.

It was night and day to how he was a month or so back.

Biden has good days mental decline is not a straight descending line but when he has bad days they are really bad and we have no idea when they come.

[Bodakane]

The claim that anyone who voted for Trump after 2016 is "100% a racist, sexist, and/or nationalist" is an overgeneralization that doesn't account for the diverse reasons people may have for supporting a candidate. Voters often consider a range of issues such as economic policies, healthcare, taxation, foreign relations, and judicial appointments when making their decisions.

Many individuals may have supported Trump due to his stance on job creation, regulatory reforms, or conservative social values. Others might have believed that his policies better aligned with their views on government size or constitutional interpretation. It's also possible for voters to disagree with certain aspects of a candidate's behavior or rhetoric while still supporting them based on policy preferences.

Assigning negative labels to all supporters of a political figure can hinder productive dialogue and understanding. It's important to recognize that voters are a heterogeneous group with varied motivations, and blanket statements may oversimplify complex individual choices

Yeah, no. Trump stands for nothing else and offers nothing else.

I'm not assigning anything. This is who Trump is.

[postman1782]

Right Cause the last 4 years have been great. Of course, political personalities are quite understandable; nonetheless, one should stick to facts and the latest information. As of my cutoff in October 2023, Donald Trump has been issued multiple indictments but has not yet been convicted of any felony charges. The cases remain in courts, and due process is in order. Possibly, characterization of any person as only a "bad guy" too often simplifies complex legal and political problems. It is satisfying to take into consideration all information available and await the outcomes of legal procedures in order to come up with certain conclusions.

- - - Updated - - -



Dismissing the response without engaging with its content doesn't foster constructive dialogue. If there are specific points you'd like to discuss or challenge, I'm here to have that conversation.

Trump has 34 convictions, the rest have been pushed back by Trump, so stop lying.

[Endus]

The claim that anyone who voted for Trump after 2016 is "100% a racist, sexist, and/or nationalist" is an overgeneralization that doesn't account for the diverse reasons people may have for supporting a candidate.

Trump and the GOP's entire platform was rooted fundamentally and irrevocably in racism, sexism, and fascist nationalism.

If you voted for Republicans, you at a minimum don't see those things as deal-breakers, and to be utterly frank, I think the Venn diagram of "people willing to endorse bigotry and nationalism on their behalf" and "actual bigots and nationalists" is a single perfect circle.

If you insist on voting for pizza for the office lunch order, we're gonna point out you probably like pizza. It's super fucking weird to protest that you don't actually like pizza, but vote for it anyway for some reason you can't actually provide.

Voters often consider a range of issues such as economic policies, healthcare, taxation, foreign relations, and judicial appointments when making their decisions.

And the Republicans platform policies on those subjects were, again, rooted in various bigotries and/or fascist nationalism. That's literally what we're talking about, here. Where did you ever get the misbegotten impression they were different?

Many individuals may have supported Trump due to his stance on job creation, regulatory reforms, or conservative social values.

The devil being in those "regulatory reforms" and "conservative social values", which just boil down to "bigotry and nationalism", again.

Also, job creation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_c...idential_terms

Reagan's the only Republican President since Carter who's outdone any Democratic Presidents in that same period. If you're actually interested in "job creation", you'd be a Democrat.

Not helping your case.

Others might have believed that his policies better aligned with their views on government size or constitutional interpretation. It's also possible for voters to disagree with certain aspects of a candidate's behavior or rhetoric while still supporting them based on policy preferences.

"Government size" is an intentionally dishonest position that's only ever used to avoid talking about what you really believe. Everyone thinks government should be as small and efficient as it can be while still achieving the objectives it has to meet.

Plus, Biden's spent less than Trump ever did; https://www.crfb.org/papers/trump-an...-national-debt

It's weird how you keep citing things the Democrats are the better party for as reasons people vote Republican.

Assigning negative labels to all supporters of a political figure can hinder productive dialogue and understanding. It's important to recognize that voters are a heterogeneous group with varied motivations, and blanket statements may oversimplify complex individual choices

Know what else hinders that? Lying and gaslighting us to our faces. Like you've been doing, here. Can't have a meaningful conversation if you can't agree to admit to the actual facts. It just demonstrates your willingness to blow smoke in our faces rather than engage honestly.

Which just proves our point.

- - - Updated - - -

You created an AI response to defend a felon.

Boo, should've run a checker first. Both of the ones I used hit 88% or higher chance that it was AI-generated.

[cordrann]

Trump and the GOP's entire platform was rooted fundamentally and irrevocably in racism, sexism, and fascist nationalism.

If you voted for Republicans, you at a minimum don't see those things as deal-breakers, and to be utterly frank, I think the Venn diagram of "people willing to endorse bigotry and nationalism on their behalf" and "actual bigots and nationalists" is a single perfect circle.

If you insist on voting for pizza for the office lunch order, we're gonna point out you probably like pizza. It's super fucking weird to protest that you don't actually like pizza, but vote for it anyway for some reason you can't actually provide.



And the Republicans platform policies on those subjects were, again, rooted in various bigotries and/or fascist nationalism. That's literally what we're talking about, here. Where did you ever get the misbegotten impression they were different?



The devil being in those "regulatory reforms" and "conservative social values", which just boil down to "bigotry and nationalism", again.

Also, job creation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_c...idential_terms

Reagan's the only Republican President since Carter who's outdone any Democratic Presidents in that same period. If you're actually interested in "job creation", you'd be a Democrat.

Not helping your case.



"Government size" is an intentionally dishonest position that's only ever used to avoid talking about what you really believe. Everyone thinks government should be as small and efficient as it can be while still achieving the objectives it has to meet.

Plus, Biden's spent less than Trump ever did; https://www.crfb.org/papers/trump-an...-national-debt

It's weird how you keep citing things the Democrats are the better party for as reasons people vote Republican.



Know what else hinders that? Lying and gaslighting us to our faces. Like you've been doing, here. Can't have a meaningful conversation if you can't agree to admit to the actual facts. It just demonstrates your willingness to blow smoke in our faces rather than engage honestly.

Which just proves our point.

- - - Updated - - -



Boo, should've run a checker first. Both of the ones I used hit 88% or higher chance that it was AI-generated.

I think you're overestimating the ability of your average American voter to pay appropriate attention and engage in critical thinking. I would estimate over half of Trump's support came from variations of "he's a businessman, he'll make the economy better," "I liked his TV show so I'm going to vote for him," "Obama-care stinks and he'll fix it," or a myriad of other nonsensical positions. The majority of his supporters are not maliciously racist, they are just complete and total morons.

[PhaelixWW]

The majority of his supporters are not maliciously racist, they are just complete and total morons.

I'm not willing to say "majority" but...

CNN: Education level has become best predictor for how someone will vote

When one political party overwhelmingly targets and collects people who are far less likely to have adequate critical thinking skills... that says something.

[Doomcookie]

I think you're overestimating the ability of your average American voter to pay appropriate attention and engage in critical thinking. I would estimate over half of Trump's support came from variations of "he's a businessman, he'll make the economy better," "I liked his TV show so I'm going to vote for him," "Obama-care stinks and he'll fix it," or a myriad of other nonsensical positions. The majority of his supporters are not maliciously racist, they are just complete and total morons.

They can be both maliciously racist, and also be complete morons. Most of the complete morons I've known are also pretty racist.

[Endus]

I think you're overestimating the ability of your average American voter to pay appropriate attention and engage in critical thinking. I would estimate over half of Trump's support came from variations of "he's a businessman, he'll make the economy better," "I liked his TV show so I'm going to vote for him," "Obama-care stinks and he'll fix it," or a myriad of other nonsensical positions. The majority of his supporters are not maliciously racist, they are just complete and total morons.

Again, the Venn diagram of "people who are bigots" and "people who support bigotry because they are stupid or think it's worth supporting for some secondary reason" is a single circle.

If you're dumb enough to support attacking women's basic human rights to deny them ownership over their own bodies, or to think trans people are in any way a threat or problem for existing, you're a bigot. I could not give a single rat's ass why you're a bigot, you're equally malicious and dangerous to those around you regardless of why you believe such hateful and abusive things.

I do not agree that there are good, decent people who are attacking immigrants because they are legitimately concerned about the economic effects on the country. They're just racist. Some of them might be polite to you, or kind in other ways, but Hitler was a vegetarian who liked dogs and by all accounts was a good romantic companion to Eva Braun. The good shit does not matter and does not make up or offset the malicious stuff.

[Kathandira]

I do not agree that there are good, decent people who are attacking immigrants because they are legitimately concerned about the economic effects on the country.

I second this. And add that if they gave a few moments to think about HOW those undocumented workers got the job in the first place, they would see that someone had to illegally hire them.

[Poopymonster]

I second this. And add that if they gave a few moments to think about HOW those undocumented workers got the job in the first place, they would see that someone had to illegally hire them.

Those are Job Creators (blessed by their names). They can't be wrong. It's the government regulations that are wrong.

[Edge-]

I think you're overestimating the ability of your average American voter to pay appropriate attention and engage in critical thinking. I would estimate over half of Trump's support came from variations of "he's a businessman, he'll make the economy better," "I liked his TV show so I'm going to vote for him," "Obama-care stinks and he'll fix it," or a myriad of other nonsensical positions. The majority of his supporters are not maliciously racist, they are just complete and total morons.

If your (the royal you) voluntary ignorance leads you to support folks with fairly explicitly maliciously racist policies and rhetoric, I must inform you that you're (the royal you, again) a malicious racist.

[Endus]

I second this. And add that if they gave a few moments to think about HOW those undocumented workers got the job in the first place, they would see that someone had to illegally hire them.

Like, undocumented workers thrive because of the market for undocumented workers. That shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp; if there was no such market, they couldn't find work, and wouldn't be able to pay their bills and stick around.

So if that market exists, and you punish those workers seeking to engage with it, but not those providing those jobs, you aren't actually worried about undocumented workers. You're exploiting and abusing those workers by denying them legal protections, while ensuring there will always be a rotating cadre of undocumented workers. If you really wanted to stop the problem, you'd target those providing the work, not the workers they're exploiting.

Same reason you don't attack illegal drug use by exclusively targeting drug users and giving drug dealers and traffickers a free pass to conduct their business. That would be insane, right? Well, that's how the US handles undocumented immigration.

Republicans don't want to stop undocumented immigration. They want to keep those workers threatened and afraid, so they're easier to exploit. They like that a farmer can hire a bunch of undocumented workers for harvest and then call ICE to raid their barracks on payday so all those laborers get deported and they don't have to pay them anything for the last few weeks of work.

You can also ask some basic questions; if we gave every undocumented immigrant a visa and a green card, does that solve the issue for you? They're no longer undocumented, so it should, right? If it doesn't, you're just being racist. It's that simple, really.

[Poopymonster]

Like, undocumented workers thrive because of the market for undocumented workers. That shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp; if there was no such market, they couldn't find work, and wouldn't be able to pay their bills and stick around.

So if that market exists, and you punish those workers seeking to engage with it, but not those providing those jobs, you aren't actually worried about undocumented workers. You're exploiting and abusing those workers by denying them legal protections, while ensuring there will always be a rotating cadre of undocumented workers. If you really wanted to stop the problem, you'd target those providing the work, not the workers they're exploiting.

Same reason you don't attack illegal drug use by exclusively targeting drug users and giving drug dealers and traffickers a free pass to conduct their business. That would be insane, right? Well, that's how the US handles undocumented immigration.

Republicans don't want to stop undocumented immigration. They want to keep those workers threatened and afraid, so they're easier to exploit. They like that a farmer can hire a bunch of undocumented workers for harvest and then call ICE to raid their barracks on payday so all those laborers get deported and they don't have to pay them anything for the last few weeks of work.

You can also ask some basic questions; if we gave every undocumented immigrant a visa and a green card, does that solve the issue for you? They're no longer undocumented, so it should, right? If it doesn't, you're just being racist. It's that simple, really.

But then they'd have to, you know, pay them minimum wage and other assorted workplace safeguards.
All that governmental bullshit, ya know?