Look, I'm a leftist libertarian, like a lot of people here, in that I think economic policy should be left wing, but social policy should provide freedoms for individuals when that freedom does not harm others. The problem is, I feel that this forum is a bit of a hive mind when it comes to political debate. We're mostly young people, and I think that has something to do with it, but I feel that it would be nice to have a thread where we can discuss why people here voted for Trump without snarky comments and loading them with dumb ratings. I fervently disagree with Trump supporters in general, but I feel that there's a distinct lack of genuine debate on this forum, and I would like to ask Trump supporters here why they voted for Trump, how they feel he's doing, and what specifically they like and dislike about his policies so far.
I hope this is the right place to post this, as this category tends to be discussing specific articles, but it felt like there was no better place for this. After all, this is Polidicks.
I hope to hear from some Trump supporters and to get some constructive debate. Cheers.
I agree with your sentiment, I feel that there's too much animosity, even on these forums, when "leftists" and "liberals" start arguing. If one wants to have a better future, they should learn to respect the opinion of those they live with.
I don't get politics and to this date I don't even really know what the fuck a leftist or rightist or whatever they're called is, I just like seeing the state of the world and how fucking backwards some parts of it are going.
I'm not really contributing to this debate, I just felt like saying I'm one of those people that's watching the world burn.
The issue I find is a lot of supporters had ulterior motives for voting and supporting Trump, I.e. I believe it was ikkah that outright said it benefited his brokerage account. If you voted someone like Trump in because you financially benefit from it, then you may have voted for the wrong reason.
I think the reason this place is beginning to sound like a "hive mind" is because general political discussion has become so lopsided that even basic realities have come under attack.
Its like arguing with a flat earther. Theres no Debate to be had. The earth isnt flat. So of course such an argument with a large group of people will go one way, because there is only one side.
Several years ago, political debate was still a mess but it was feasible. Now I don't even have the opportunity to think about my positions on complex issues, Im stuck fighting people who don't believe in reality. Its awful.
It was indeed ikkah who said that. To be honest, I'd find debate with him fairly tedious, but people like Sgman at least attempt to debate in a polite way, and I do hope to hear from him and people like him in this thread.
In response to the rest of your post: I think everybody votes for things they think will help them, when it comes down to it. For example, I'd vote yes for gay marriage because it makes me feel good to do nice things for others, but many people aren't built that way, and vote only for things that will personally benefit them.
IMO respect is earned and there is no point in wasting time discussing stuff with people who don't want honest discussion.
Well you have to consider the fact that people on the other side have the same opinion of leftists, and they're not necessarily all idiots.
Leftists think of rightists: "those idiots are all egotistical and refuse to believe in reality, and all they care about is making more money and be racist. Why argue?"
Rightists think of leftists: "those idiots are all delusional and refuse to believe in reality, and all they care about is spreading money and resources thin and pretend to live in an utopia. Why argue?"
While I believe this thread will probably be locked for violating guidelines, I'll say my piece anyway, for what it's worth.
It's unlikely you'll find any actual "full" trump supporters on these forums anymore ever since the large majority of them got banned due to terrible posting around election season, and the ones you will find will likelier be voting Republican due to some specific policies they agree with or policies they fear and/or disagree with on the other side - not actual full blown supporters of Trump's words or actions.
As for the lack of debate, I find it hard for it to exist when people are prone to read posts not in order to understand and engage ideas but simply in order to reply with ready-made responses.
This is likely from a lack of even minimal mutual respect (which given some ideas supported by people can be understandable) and sometimes lack of sufficient care for civil discussion.
Be careful that you don't lock yourself out of discussions that could be constructive and comprehensive with that mindset, by refusing to deal with/listen to your opponents.
Like some other people said here already, reason we can't really have a debate because politics de-evolved into fighting for your own basic human rights, logic, modesty and respect towards other human beings. There's almost nothing else, it's either 'free education and healthcare' or 'expensive education and healthcare that can put you into debt for the benefit of fewer people.'
The only "reasonable" motive to support Trump now is the questionable gains on the stockmarket - and anybody who values minor improvements to their portfolio over the very real damage Trump is doing to the US has an ethnical system so different from my own that a middle ground probably cannot be met.
It's like discussing something with someone who rejects any source you produce claiming everything (except the skeptic youtube videos videos they watch) is bias.
A friend of mine is big into Trump and went through a period of sending me David Duke, Varg, Golden One, Sargon, stefan moleneux vids. I'm still his friend but I refuse to engage in political discussion with him. I'm hoping that me (and his other irl friends) refusing to engage/validate his views will help him change. I'm also hoping he gets a gf who "moderates" his insanity. It's scary how indoctrinated he is from watching youtube. He would ask me to explain how a video, by david duke accusing jews of masterminding a war, was antisemetic - that's arguing in bad faith and a complete waste of my time.
The difference is that people on the left can usually back this belief up with scientific facts, while the right cannot. The right will instead make up their own facts with their own faked sources, which may not be logically consistent, but at least they'll be enough to convince some gullible rednecks to gain supporters.
The right and the left in America live in their own separate realities. They cannot debate. The only way this situation will ever get resolved at this point, is war.
Probs best to better granulate left and right. Since a fiscal conservative might claim that socialism has no proof and then reel off a load of 1800s economic theory/studies as to why their own ideology is empirically based. I say this as an economic left winger/socially liberal myself/advocate for democratic socialism myself.
Yeah, let's granulate this to those who stand with, and those who stand against Trump, really.
Well sure, if you wanna solve this complex problem with violence... I thought warmongers were usually on the right side of the spectrum.
Glad to see this thread already degenerated into "having a conversation is impossible because people who aren't of my political tilt are obviously fucking retarded and can't think critically" before anyone to argue with actually showed up.
I dont want to group "leftists" and "rightists" because they big broad groups and I don't like generalizing.
But I need to point this out.
Right now, the leader of the "right" as a whole, in general, is Donald Trump, a man who:
-Was a major spearhead in the birther controversy
-Suggested vaccination may be bad and hited toward it causing autism
-Does not believe in climate change.
-Empowered white supremacy numerous times
-Dismisses all criticism of him as "fake news"
-So much more than I can list.
And look at other popular figures of the current right:
Richard spencer, white supremacist
Alex jones, gay frog man
Pretty much all of fox news: propaganda outlet.
Now lets look whos been super popular on the left.
Bernie sanders.
And a few others, but not even close to the popularity as sanders.
There are conservatives that actually know basic facts, and bury their heads in shame every time trump does something. Hell, I would say most of facepunch's conservatives fall under this category.
But under the grand scope of things, they seem to be a dying breed. The difference between the right and left in the US is while both had their share of crazies, the general right has been poisoned by that extremism while the left has been rather resistant (and lets hope it stays that way, though I am not so sure how long this can last).
In the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you think, what matters are facts.
And one side has clearly chosen to dismiss them when it did not suite their agenda.
Oh shit? I didn't realise it was likely to be locked. I just don't know where else I would post this - it's not appropriate for General Discussion, in my opinion.
I think what one should target when speaking with people who disagree to that degree politically is not so much the actual opinions themselves as the reasons for why they assert the premises they do to be true (which ultimately result in their conclusions).
That is, not to assert your position as true but to get them to question what they believe to be facts, which result in their positions. Obviously this can only be done when they have minimal critical thinking skills and good faith is had on both sides of an argument (a rarity on the internet, to be sure). Sometimes there's miscommunication on both sides of an argument where people use the exact same words yet mean different things, thinking they speak the same language when they clearly do not - this too is a thing that should be cleared up as early as possible in an argument with a person as to minimize the opportunity of it devolving into a fruitless semantic argument - for after all what matters is what the words denote, not the actual words being "correct".
Additionally, using emotional language and moral language when arguing with such people is counter-productive because in many cases it is very clear they hold both different moral positions as well as a view of what are the facts, and doing so is just likely to get them to cease engaging with your ideas seriously for whatever reason (unless that alone is your actual argument, in which case the only possible solution is to agree to disagree due to the difference in what each party believes to be "right" or "proper").
We've had plenty of Tudds on this forum to know exactly how debating a Trump supporter goes down.
Either they get themselves banned in a matter of 1-5 posts due to incredibly dumb, disgusting or inflammatory posts, or they remain vaguely civil but keep arguing for the same points that are disproven over and over again. Then, a couple of months later it turns out they were just trolling people as revealed over some chatlogs.
Don't worry, I've already argued with Trump supporters and they've got a ton of "facts" of their own. The truth is that modern political discussions go way beyond facts, or even ""facts"". It's obvious that the real, actual facts are on our side, but a Trump supporter would say the same. If you want a constructive argument, you need to forget about facts because modern journalism has twisted the notion of "fact" so much that it's become near impossible to win an argument with them when discussing politics.
How do you debate with someone who will claim that water is dry?
This is the wrong way to take. People that are ostracized for their political views and have no one but like minded to talk to will be radicalized. Just look at more or less every single person who left neo nazi grouping and then talk about how they got there and why they left.
If we dismiss what a fact is, whats the point of having a debate?
I call something a fact when it has been peer reviewed in scientific journals and has extensive evidence to back it up.
Just calling something a fact doesn't make it so. A random guy on YouTube who uploads 2 hour videos of himself rambling on a static image of some dead philosopher isnt a valid source.
I understand what you mean that everyone will call what they believe as "fact".
The difference comes when you can back it with tangible evidence that goes beyond empty words.
What would a constructive argument look like if it's not based on any manner of facts? Is there some secret formula for convincing a Trump supporter that I'm not aware of?
Do we have to create our own conspiracy theories which sound more crazy and engaging than the existing conspiracies, in order to get them to support our goals?
E.g. "The Deep State Mafia has made a pact with the Mosquito People to increase the global Temperature using CO^2 emissions so that they may expand into Alaska"
What I meant is that nowadays, you can find reliable-looking source for pretty much every "fact" you could want. That's why it's become hard to use effectively. You present someone with a good source, they'll say "I don't trust your source, meanwhile this reliable source of mine claims..." and so forth.
We still talk to him, I talk to him about investing, games, music, programming, girls etc. He's not pushed out of the group but his reactionary views are - and we didn't conspire as a group to do this, he'd only do it in online chats and we each, independently without communication, took the same action to ignore his bs.
Recently we talked again about politics a lil and it seems, while he is still very anti establishment, at least he's stopped with the racist bullshit. So I think it worked to some degree.
People leave neo nazi groups when their behaviour/views to fit in with the neo nazi groups mean they're at risk of losing connection with other groups - a Ted talk I watched a guy lost his wife because of it, people lose their friends because of it. I believe that ostracising the views, while not totally ignoring the person, is the best way. I gives em an out - a place to go if they do leave the reactionary circle but it also demonstrates that the reactionary views are not welcome in polite/sane society.
Fuck that sounds like a fantastic idea I admit.
Most of the time (at least on here), it's not an argument about the "facts", but about their context and interpretation.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
