Trump supporters, how do you square this?

[Hawkboys]

I still haven't decided on who I'll vote for. I agree with Trump on a good chunk of his policies (mostly disagree on his approach to Ukraine which I think is personal for him). But while I see all politicians as liars, I really can't reconcile Trump's terrible leadership style. There will be advanced college level leadership classes in the future that discuss what not to do from a leadership standpoint just based on him.

I think Biden was really just a non-leader and Kamala will be more unifying as a leader outwardly, but will be a terrible policy maker that's bad for the country. But ultimately I just can't get past Trump's horrible leadership. I'm just stuck at the moment.

 

[Will C]

I still haven't decided on who I'll vote for. I agree with Trump on a good chunk of his policies (mostly disagree on his approach to Ukraine which I think is personal for him). But while I see all politicians as liars, I really can't reconcile Trump's terrible leadership style. There will be advanced college level leadership classes in the future that discuss what not to do from a leadership standpoint just based on him.

I think Biden was really just a non-leader and Kamala will be more unifying as a leader outwardly, but will be a terrible policy maker that's bad for the country. But ultimately I just can't get past Trump's horrible leadership. I'm just stuck at the moment.

I agree with you for the most part but see Ukraine as an issue that must be gotten right and Trump is on the wrong side of it. We have wasted billions of dollars since WW2 because of Russia. In the long run beating them into a different type of government will be to our great benefit.

 

[Hawkboys]

I agree with you for the most part but see Ukraine as an issue that must be gotten right and Trump is on the wrong side of it. We have wasted billions of dollars since WW2 because of Russia. In the long run beating them into a different type of government will be to our great benefit.

Ukraine is the 1 policy issue that I'm totally against Trump's policy for the very reason you state.

 

[Fryowa]

I agree with you for the most part but see Ukraine as an issue that must be gotten right and Trump is on the wrong side of it. We have wasted billions of dollars since WW2 because of Russia. In the long run beating them into a different type of government will be to our great benefit.

Ukraine is the 1 policy issue that I'm totally against Trump's policy for the very reason you state.

Letting Ukraine use the missiles we've given them on Russia's interior would somewhat quickly end that war and my hope would be that the CIA could install a government that would hopefully be anything but Putin. Russia is a ginormous paper tiger.

Although I am glad we were scared of Russia for the past 60+ years even if it was unfounded, because we wouldn't be nearly as militarily safe as we are now without developing and paying for our huge military out of being scared of the Ruskies.

 

[Fryowa]

Just now, lol...

 

[PCHawk]

1) When was the last time you witnessed a politician...GOP, D, or otherwise...telling the truth?

2) Not a defense of Harris in the least, but let’s get real here, amigo. Trump's idea of what’s corrupt and what isn’t ain’t exactly reality. This is precisely what I meant when I said these people will say anything and everything to get folks like yourself believing what they want you to believe without any critical thinking and with no connection to reality.

I mean come on…you seem like a pretty intelligent fella…Donald Trump preaching about ethics is about as loony as Al Michaels giving a lecture on the time-space continuum. Jesus.

The politicians (on both sides) get you guys sucked into their alternate realities and personality cults and it’s off to the races for them.

I'm not saying I'm taking Trump's word for gold. I'm saying I still hold out some hope for him because he's not a career politician. And his explanation for how his first term went wrong is the only explanation that works for me. I'm not voting for him because I 100% believe him. I'm voting for him because I 100% don't believe the Democrat machine that's going on right now. I'm more 50/50 on what Trump says.

 

[PCHawk]

Russia is tough for me because we've been told we need to hate a lot of countries in that past that we didn't necessarily have to hate. Is the Russian propaganda legit? I don't know. If Russia wants to stake claim to a small chunk of Ukranian land, who cares? If Russia is attacking Ukraine because we are in talks of letting them join NATO, then I kinda side with Russia on that. If Russia is starting with Ukraine and moving west similar to Hitler in WW2, then we are doing the right thing to try to end it with money instead of American lives. Which one of the three stories are true?

Trump says he will end the war fast. Who knows if he can, but that's his policy on it and it's strange that people don't agree with it. It's like people want WW3 just because they hate Trump.

 

[PCHawk]

Also does anyone find it slightly suspicious that the country Hunter Biden had shady relations with happens to be the country we are dumping unchecked money to?

Everyone knows the story of Trump's son in law doing billions of dollars in business with Saudi Arabia. Imagine if they broke out into war on Trump's watch and the US government started dumping billions of dollars to them. Even if that wasn't enough to get me to not vote for Trump, I'd still admit there's a really good chance there's something up there.

 

[Hay Man]

I'm not saying I'm taking Trump's word for gold. I'm saying I still hold out some hope for him because he's not a career politician. And his explanation for how his first term went wrong is the only explanation that works for me. I'm not voting for him because I 100% believe him. I'm voting for him because I 100% don't believe the Democrat machine that's going on right now. I'm more 50/50 on what Trump says.

This whole "he's not a career politician" bullshit is so stupid (Was he not the President for 4 years???). If a person is a terrible human being, they're a terrible human being. He's been a terrible business person his whole life and and a worse moral character. Oh, but he's Christian...he's as Christian as the Sun is purple. He's a pathetic leader who never takes responsibility for anything, lies constantly, never pays for what he owes and for some reason so many of his followers thing he's the next Jesus Christ. Man, you people are so exhausting.

 

[Fryowa]

If Russia wants to stake claim to a small chunk of Ukranian land, who cares?

If Russia wanted to stake claim to a small chunk of Alaska would you care? It used to be theirs and it's geographically close. And before you say Russia "owned" Ukraine so it should be theirs, Russia didn't exist when Ukraine was granted independence. The USSR did, and it fell apart. Ukraine became a declared sovereign country in 1990 by it's own citizens.

By that same logic, if the government in Italy was overthrown via coup, and the new leaders said, "We're not Italy anymore, we are the Republic of Rome," would you think it appropriate for them to invade all of Europe and annex it because it all used to "belong" to the Roman Empire?

If Russia is attacking Ukraine because we are in talks of letting them join NATO, then I kinda side with Russia on that.

Holy shit, man. That just completely jumped the shark. A sovereign country should be open to attack because another country doesn't like the other one making potential alliance? Jesus Mary...

1) Have any other NATO countries attacked Russia to this point?

2) When Finland which also borders Russia talked about joining (due to an actual Russian invasion right next door for god's sake), should Russia have attacked them?

3) Under your logic, if Mexico entered talks to join BRICS we should attack them.

Usually I can see some level-headedness and forethought in what you're saying, but yowzers. This is waaaaaay out in left field.

 

[CP87]

So of all the terrible things Trump has either said or supposedly said, the one thar broke the camel's back was there's an enemy within? I'd say a majority of the country thinks there's an enemy within. The only question is who they think that enemy is. I do agree with you that the timing if the story doesn't make it less damning. But it does make it less likely it's true.

My logic on more people speaking out against Trump might be wrong, but it isn't flawed. Remember my opinion is that Washington is full of corrupt people. Why would i want corrupt people to side with Trump? It's possible I'm wrong and there's not mass corruption in Washington. But it's not flawed logic to think it's a good thing that corrupt people speak out against a guy who is trying to end the corruption. In my mind it would be way more damning if Washington was backing Trump.

One thing Trump said that really gives me some hope is he said his first term he didn't know anybody and was convinced by lobbyists to hire certain people who weren't good hires. He says he knows everyone now and will hire people who aren't corrupt. He also said (and everyone on both sides has to concede this is true) that he had the guts to fire people and when people get fired they say bad things about you. He pointed out during the debate that no one got fired for the Afghanistan withdrawal. If Biden would have fired someone, do you think that person would have good things to say about him right before the election? If he wasn't pushed out I mean.

Kelly is a military man with an exemplary record. His account is backed up by numerous sources, and it echoes similar accounts provided by many more of Trump's cabinet members and staff. These are all Republicans, by the way. For the life of me, I cannot understand why people think Trump is the one to be trusted; he has decades in the public eye where he has consistently proven himself to be a conman, and his self-interest in lying is evident. What self-interest do Kelly, Mattis, Milley, Esper, Bolton, etc. have to lie? You can come up with some conspiracy-driven motivations, but the most simple explanation is that these lifelong Republican public-servants truly feel like Trump is a reckless and incompetent leader.

To the bolded part, it is not the "enemy within" language, it is the rest of the rant. Trump explicitly proposed using the US military to take care of radical leftists who do not agree with him. All of his surrogates argue that isn't what he actually meant, and whenever Trump has been given an opportunity to clarify or walk that back, he doubles down, he truly believes the US military could and should be used against US citizens who do not agree with him. So yes, that unconstitutional suggestion would be expected to rankle a career military man who has fought to defend the constitution and the American people.

And no, I don't think most Americans believe there is an enemy within. Trump is a buffoon, a likely criminal, and a horrible choice for leader, but he is not an enemy. To the extent his criminality is proven by a court of law, he will need to face consequences, like any other US citizen. But I do not support extra-judicial action carried out by the US military against he and his supporters.

 

[CP87]

Russia is tough for me because we've been told we need to hate a lot of countries in that past that we didn't necessarily have to hate. Is the Russian propaganda legit? I don't know. If Russia wants to stake claim to a small chunk of Ukranian land, who cares? If Russia is attacking Ukraine because we are in talks of letting them join NATO, then I kinda side with Russia on that. If Russia is starting with Ukraine and moving west similar to Hitler in WW2, then we are doing the right thing to try to end it with money instead of American lives. Which one of the three stories are true?

Trump says he will end the war fast. Who knows if he can, but that's his policy on it and it's strange that people don't agree with it. It's like people want WW3 just because they hate Trump.

How did appeasement work out prior to WWII? Do authoritarian autocrats typically accept a compromise and then decide they will behave?

 

[PCHawk]

This whole "he's not a career politician" bullshit is so stupid (Was he not the President for 4 years???). If a person is a terrible human being, they're a terrible human being. He's been a terrible business person his whole life and and a worse moral character. Oh, but he's Christian...he's as Christian as the Sun is purple. He's a pathetic leader who never takes responsibility for anything, lies constantly, never pays for what he owes and for some reason so many of his followers thing he's the next Jesus Christ. Man, you people are so exhausting.

He was president for 4 years. In his 70s. So definitely doesn't fall into the career politician category. The funny thing about him being a terrible person his whole life is a lot of the people who hate him now loved him 8 years ago. He'll, Oprah tried talking him into running for president. He was on the view and it seemed like those ladies were wanting to bone him. He was only a terrible person after he changed to a republican.

 

[Fryowa]

He was president for 4 years. In his 70s. So definitely doesn't fall into the career politician category. The funny thing about him being a terrible person his whole life is a lot of the people who hate him now loved him 8 years ago. He'll, Oprah tried talking him into running for president. He was on the view and it seemed like those ladies were wanting to bone him. He was only a terrible person after he changed to a republican.

People can't change their opinions of others based on what they learn about them and their actions? How does that work.

There are a great many examples in history of people from every walk of life who used to be well-liked but got exposed as really terrible people.

Look, I get where you're going. You have strong opinions and you like the guy, and that's your right 100%. But the points you're making to try and defend that guy are just so far out in left field you can't see home plate from there. What's wrong with just saying, "You know what, I like the guy's policies and that's why I'm voting for him" and leave it at that?

And trust me, this isn't an attack on you from a guy on the other side. My disdain for the other party and candidate is on the same level. I'd be telling you the same thing if you were pining on about Harris.

 

[Fryowa]

He was president for 4 years. In his 70s. So definitely doesn't fall into the career politician category. The funny thing about him being a terrible person his whole life is a lot of the people who hate him now loved him 8 years ago. He'll, Oprah tried talking him into running for president. He was on the view and it seemed like those ladies were wanting to bone him. He was only a terrible person after he changed to a republican.

Don't you guys all think he's still the president because there was a global communist conspiracy to rig and fake the election?

You know, the same type of thing that Harris' supporters will say if she loses?

 

[CP87]

I don't think comparing Trump to prior fascist dictators convinces any trump supporter to move away from him. We are so desensitized by Godwin's Law: for the last 2 decades, we have fairly consistently heard Bush, Obama, and Trump all compared to Hitler. Further, we envision Nazi Germany as this monstrosity that could never happen again, the German citizens as either horrifically racist or inconceivably gullible. We are not like that.

Guess what? Neither were those Germans prior to being led to that state by a charismatic leader who preached nationalism, grievance, and a common enemy they could focus their hatred upon. I really do NOT think we will become Nazi Germany, I think we have enough guard rails in place and a strong enough counter-balance to Trump's fascist tendencies, and overall most people in this country have it pretty good (much of the grievance is contrived).

But it is hard to not think of the Kristallnacht when Trump starts hammering his mass deportation plan. There are already paramilitary organizations (analogs to the SA, or "brown shirts") working throughout our country to locate illegal immigrants. In a recent speech, Trump said something to the effect of...we have people ready to take care of these immigrants, and they will be allowed to do so (paraphrased). It was not clear if he was talking about US Law Enforcement, Military, or something else, but it certainly could have been taken as a call to arms for these militias (much like his "stand back and stand by" was in 2016).

I am sure this seems hyperbolic to anyone who supports Trump, and I hope it is truly hyperbole. But it is hard to not see parallels.

 

[Hay Man]

He was president for 4 years. In his 70s. So definitely doesn't fall into the career politician category. The funny thing about him being a terrible person his whole life is a lot of the people who hate him now loved him 8 years ago. He'll, Oprah tried talking him into running for president. He was on the view and it seemed like those ladies were wanting to bone him. He was only a terrible person after he changed to a republican.

He's still a politician, whether it's for 40 years or 4, that's part of who he is. And yes, he's always been a terrible person. He's been sexually assaulting many women of all ages for decades. Yeah, I'm sure every woman wants to bang him wherever he goes. If he was a Democrat, I'd call him the same things I'm saying now. Why is it that Republicans defend that absolute worst people. A bad person is a bad person regardless of their political leaning, what their profession is, what race, sexual orientation, etc....

 

[Fryowa]

I still haven't decided on who I'll vote for.

You know you can abstain, right?

You don't have to vote for a person you think really sucks just because the other one sucks more.

Abstaining isn't a "vote for 'the other party'" like the GOP and Democrats want you to think. It helps neither side. It's a wash and that's ok. you're still participating.

 

[PCHawk]

If Russia wanted to stake claim to a small chunk of Alaska would you care? It used to be theirs and it's geographically close. And before you say Russia "owned" Ukraine so it should be theirs, Russia didn't exist when Ukraine was granted independence. The USSR did, and it fell apart. Ukraine became a declared sovereign country in 1990 by it's own citizens.

By that same logic, if the government in Italy was overthrown via coup, and the new leaders said, "We're not Italy anymore, we are the Republic of Rome," would you think it appropriate for them to invade all of Europe and annex it because it all used to "belong" to the Roman Empire?


Holy shit, man. That just completely jumped the shark. A sovereign country should be open to attack because another country doesn't like the other one making potential alliance? Jesus Mary...

1) Have any other NATO countries attacked Russia to this point?

2) When Finland which also borders Russia talked about joining (due to an actual Russian invasion right next door for god's sake), should Russia have attacked them?

3) Under your logic, if Mexico entered talks to join BRICS we should attack them.

Usually I can see some level-headedness and forethought in what you're saying, but yowzers. This is waaaaaay out in left field.

I would care if it was Alaska because it's part of our country so that's maybe not the greatest example. There's wars all over the world and the US decides which ones to tell the citizens to care about. I completely see the argument that we should police the world, spending money we don't have to help the little guy. I just don't know how sustainable it is with the deficit we have. That's why I don't care. But again, I understand that people do.

There's a big back story to what I'm saying that maybe you have never heard, or maybe you don't care or think it's bullshit but I'll give you a quick rundown. When Raegan convinced Russia to tear down the Berlin wall their major stipulation is NATO cant move one inch further east. The timeliness of events leading up to Russia invading and the US talking about possibly letting Ukraine into NATO is pretty damning (if true). It looks like the US provoked the attack. Possibly to hurt Russia with a proxy war, possibly to launder money, or possibly both. In any event, it's similar to us not wanting Russian missiles in Cuba during the cold War. Why would Russia want NATO weapons in Ukraine. If people don't want to believe that timeline and don't think the US would ever provoke a war in a foreign country that's fine. But if you've never heard about the events that lead to that, hopefully you look into it before you shoot it down.

 

[PCHawk]

People can't change their opinions of others based on what they learn about them and their actions? How does that work.

There are a great many examples in history of people from every walk of life who used to be well-liked but got exposed as really terrible people.

Look, I get where you're going. You have strong opinions and you like the guy, and that's your right 100%. But the points you're making to try and defend that guy are just so far out in left field you can't see home plate from there. What's wrong with just saying, "You know what, I like the guy's policies and that's why I'm voting for him" and leave it at that?

And trust me, this isn't an attack on you from a guy on the other side. My disdain for the other party and candidate is on the same level. I'd be telling you the same thing if you were pining on about Harris.

They can change their minds and it's possible they did. The reason I don't say "I like the guy's policies" is because I'm debating on whether or not there's a coordinated attack on him to keep him out of power. I get that you don't trust Trump, and I don't fully trust him either. But our distain for the government corruption is the same. So let me ask you this. If the government is corrupt like we think, how do you think they would deal with an outsider? In my opinion, they would do exactly what they're doing to Trump. Use the media to do nonstop hit pieces. Go after him legally. Try to assassinate him. Say he's a threat to democracy while completely bypassing democracy to install a candidate. Call him Hitler.