Trump supporters, how do you square this?

[CP87]

Lefties (aka pinko commies) only: what are some ideas/policies from the right that you think are on the right track (if not perfect)? Try not to couch within backhanded criticism.

Righties (aka fascist, authoritarian wingnuts) only: what are some ideas/policies from the left that you think are on the right track (if not perfect)?

I consider myself left of center these days, and I will start.

I think globalism has been a disappointment, the promises made 30 years ago have not come to fruition. I think the right (and frankly, Trump more so than the old-guard GOP) recognized/admitted this first, and some of the more protectionist policies have merit, especially to the extent that they bring industries critical for national security back home. There is a reason that Biden decided to continue these Trump policies re: China (and even take them further).

I think the right has been more realistic on the importance of border security specifically, and order more generally. Violent crime is down, but a sense of societal disorder/chaos is up in many areas.

I think the right has been more pro-family, in rhetoric if not in policy. The left seems so concerned about offending single-parents as to ignore the overwhelming evidence that one of the most potent predictors of success is having 2 parents involved in your upbringing.

The right does patriotism better. Our country is flawed, but right here and right now is still one of the best places/times to ever have lived. We can acknowledge failures and areas for improvement without shitting on the good old USA.

 

[HuckFinn]

Evidence please- connecting Biden to instigating and encouraging the riots as Trump did on Jan 6

Good God…

 

[thedukeofearl]

I believe this is similar to the way so many trump voters feel. Most support him for the policies he’s going to implement, not because they think he’s some great holy person. The democratic agenda is so far gone from the direction of most Americans. If the democrats continue pushing this woke agenda they’ll continue to lose. It’s as simple as that.

The left went full tilt with the woke situations

And alienated a lot of America, right, and left middle of the road Democrats

They must dial this back or risk losing the presidency and congress on a somewhat
permanent basis

 

[Westernhawk]

Whataboutism is a made up word used by hypocrites to avoid being called out for their hypocrisy. So you're saying destroying black people's lives is fine, just stay away from the old white people in the capital? And does pausing the transfer of power for a few hours really a disruption of democracy?

Wow you sure get confused easily. I never said any of that. I'm very much anti violence and anti crime, but that is not what we were discussing. I'll reply to your other, lengthy non sequitur momentarily.

And yes, attacking Capitol police and attempting to "stop the steal" is very much a disruption of democracy, silly man.

 

[Westernhawk]

I have no idea if this guy is a good hire or not, but calling him a Fox and Friends host is like calling ivermectin horse dewarmer.

Pete Hegseth, Trump's new Secretary of Defense, WAS the Fox and Friends host from 2017 to 2024. Are you allergic to factual information? Jesus.

 

[Westernhawk]

Let's unpack this whole "tying BLM protests to Jam 6th" thing. The way I compared them (and I stand by it) is they were both protests that escalated into riots. The ways they aren't similar is location of where they happened, who they affected, and reasons behind it. So if you think one is fine and the other isn't, it means you're either ok with where the riots took place (black neighborhoods) , who the riots affected (black people) or the reasons behind the protests. If it's one of the first two reasons, that's really racist of you. If it's the last reason, that means you are only ok with protests that turn into riots if you agree with the reasoning behind the protest.

Thats fine if you feel that way. I'm just more consistent in my belief that protest should always be legal. I will add this tho. I think the BLM protest/riots were worse because of who they affected. I feel a lot worse for the small business owners in black neighborhoods than I do for the rich white people who hid in a room behind people with guns to protect them.

Just stop.

First off, your argument isn't really an argument:

1. You don't know my race.
2. I never said I agreed with, or supported, the BLM riots.
3. I am against all forms of violence and illegal activity, and those riots were very problematic.

You calling me a racist for NO reason is both terrible, and a really poor attempt at obfuscation.

The ACTUAL point was that you equivocated the BLM rioters and the Capitol Insurrectionists as "minions" of their respective leaders.

That's your ACTUAL argument. Here's my point, since you seem to really struggle with this:

1. Trump spoke to the Capitol rioters (where many crimes were committed, btw) minutes before they assaulted Capitol police. He motivated and incited the riot and the disruption of the peaceful transfer of power.
2. Biden did NO SUCH THING with BLM folks or any other folks. He never asked anybody to do anything like this. So, your point is invalid.

Don't look for a reply back from me if you respond. I needed to clarify that your ad hominem attack on me is way off base and didn't even address the original point.

 

[Westernhawk]

I would agree with that. The Democrats need wholesale changes at the top and a new direction instead of pandering to the few.

I also agree. The Progressive wing of the Dem party is far too focused on some of these issues, and they do not resonate with the vast majority of us.

I hope for a future with moderates from both parties, and getting back to some modicum of discussion of policy. Maybe it's a pipe dream. Personally, I like the wonky political discussions about the economy, and the different factors that move the economy over time.

 

[thedukeofearl]

"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed, and love of power." -P.J. O'Rourke, writer (b. 14 Nov 1947)

Damn, Well, PJ is entitled to his opinion, as are we all

 

[Westernhawk]

The left went full tilt with the woke situations

And alienated a lot of America, right, and left middle of the road Democrats

They must dial this back or risk losing the presidency and congress on a somewhat
permanent basis

I agree. I am not happy with the direction the Progressives are taking that party. It doesn't resonate with most of us.

 

[SCHawkeye2]

I already posted a video montage of democrats supporting violence. If you don't know who they are, I suppose I can help you with that.

Please do.

 

[PCHawk]

Pete Hegseth, Trump's new Secretary of Defense, WAS the Fox and Friends host from 2017 to 2024. Are you allergic to factual information? Jesus.

And ivermectin WAS horse dewormer. Saying "horse dewormer" and "fox and friends host" are both factually true, and both were also said to purposely minimize something/someone. That's why I compared the two.

 

[thedukeofearl]

I agree. I am not happy with the direction the Progressives are taking that party. It doesn't resonate with most of us.

Yeah, there are quite a few Democrats who don't live in NYC or LA

Could toss Seattle, Denver and Chicago in there also

 

[PCHawk]

Just stop.

First off, your argument isn't really an argument:

1. You don't know my race.
2. I never said I agreed with, or supported, the BLM riots.
3. I am against all forms of violence and illegal activity, and those riots were very problematic.

You calling me a racist for NO reason is both terrible, and a really poor attempt at obfuscation.

The ACTUAL point was that you equivocated the BLM rioters and the Capitol Insurrectionists as "minions" of their respective leaders.

That's your ACTUAL argument. Here's my point, since you seem to really struggle with this:

1. Trump spoke to the Capitol rioters (where many crimes were committed, btw) minutes before they assaulted Capitol police. He motivated and incited the riot and the disruption of the peaceful transfer of power.
2. Biden did NO SUCH THING with BLM folks or any other folks. He never asked anybody to do anything like this. So, your point is invalid.

Don't look for a reply back from me if you respond. I needed to clarify that your ad hominem attack on me is way off base and didn't even address the original point.

For the record, I obviously don't really think you're racist. I just find it interesting when people say the BLM riots and Jan 6th were different. I think they are accidentally minimizing the importance of what they did to the black community and over inflating the importance of the old white people who's days got ruined. Maybe a bit of unconscious bias? Either way, my intent pf the post was to make that point and I didn't intend for you to think I was actually calling you racist. Sorry about that.

 

[Westernhawk]

Lefties (aka pinko commies) only: what are some ideas/policies from the right that you think are on the right track (if not perfect)? Try not to couch within backhanded criticism.

Righties (aka fascist, authoritarian wingnuts) only: what are some ideas/policies from the left that you think are on the right track (if not perfect)?

I consider myself left of center these days, and I will start.

I think globalism has been a disappointment, the promises made 30 years ago have not come to fruition. I think the right (and frankly, Trump more so than the old-guard GOP) recognized/admitted this first, and some of the more protectionist policies have merit, especially to the extent that they bring industries critical for national security back home. There is a reason that Biden decided to continue these Trump policies re: China (and even take them further).

I think the right has been more realistic on the importance of border security specifically, and order more generally. Violent crime is down, but a sense of societal disorder/chaos is up in many areas.

I think the right has been more pro-family, in rhetoric if not in policy. The left seems so concerned about offending single-parents as to ignore the overwhelming evidence that one of the most potent predictors of success is having 2 parents involved in your upbringing.

The right does patriotism better. Our country is flawed, but right here and right now is still one of the best places/times to ever have lived. We can acknowledge failures and areas for improvement without shitting on the good old USA.

When I voted this year, I picked some local and state folks from different parties, for what it's worth.
I typically have voted Dem, but I do not agree with everything. Here's what I think the Right is doing better:

1. Enforcement of laws and protection of communities. I think the pendulum swung too far after the George Floyd protests. In my community, I often wonder if the police actually do anything. That's a major swing and a miss for the progressives, in my opinion. I helped to "vote out" the Dem Attorney General here, for example. As you noted, violent crime is down but property crime is a major issue where I live. I don't think there is enough enforcement or prosecution.
2. Border security. I think the right generally does this better. Not perfect, but better. It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming few years.

 

[Westernhawk]

And ivermectin WAS horse dewormer. Saying "horse dewormer" and "fox and friends host" are both factually true, and both were also said to purposely minimize something/someone. That's why I compared the two.

Fair enough. I'm pointing out that this guy, who most recently was a Fox personality, is going to be in charge of a million or more soldiers.

For what it's worth, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, given his lack of experience. He's a decorated veteran, and deserves a chance. I'm also a veteran.

On the other hand, Matt Gaetz, whoah.

 

[PCHawk]

Please do.

Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are two I remember off the top of my head. Did you not watch that video? Lots of democrats were saying rhetoric just as bad as Trump was. I personally think people need to take responsible for their own actions so saying "those words insinuated violence" is kinda dumb to be. I think Trump said some dumb ahit but nothing near bad enough to be held responsible, and I think all those democrats said some dumb shit but also nowhere near enough to be held responsible. If you're dumb enough to do something dumb because you "had a feeling you knew what a politician was getting at", you have issues and deserve what you get.

 

[SCHawkeye2]

Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are two I remember off the top of my head. Did you not watch that video? Lots of democrats were saying rhetoric just as bad as Trump was. I personally think people need to take responsible for their own actions so saying "those words insinuated violence" is kinda dumb to be. I think Trump said some dumb ahit but nothing near bad enough to be held responsible, and I think all those democrats said some dumb shit but also nowhere near enough to be held responsible. If you're dumb enough to do something dumb because you "had a feeling you knew what a politician was getting at", you have issues and deserve what you get.

Where is the evidence of the BLM rioters being Democrats?
Where is the evidence of Biden exhorting the BLM rioters to this violence and encouraging it?
As you have claimed?

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

Good governance is when no one is happy, but everyone is satisfied. That means there was some give and take, and the final policy was probably balanced. I think there can be instances where a mashup of 2 decent ideas can lead to a horrible policy (worse than either of the competing ideas would have been), but those are rare.

Take climate policy...one side wants to eliminate fossil fuels, while simultaneously making it so difficult to build the necessary transitional infrastructure to make it happen. The other side wants the cheapest energy possible, and to pander to fossil fuel-based company execs...

To piggy-back on this.

In conversations I've had with numerous people of different political ideologies, I would say that most on the right recognize the need to move away from fossil-fuels but feel that the almost religious-like fervor with which the left approached it, and the rapidity of the changes, were over-the-top and counterproductive.

Ironically, by preaching to the masses and steamrolling their agenda, the left actually may have damaged the incentive to be more "green." The transition needs to be much more gradual, and done so in a way that maintains our energy independence.

 

[PCHawk]

Fair enough. I'm pointing out that this guy, who most recently was a Fox personality, is going to be in charge of a million or more soldiers.

For what it's worth, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, given his lack of experience. He's a decorated veteran, and deserves a chance. I'm also a veteran.

On the other hand, Matt Gaetz, whoah.

I'm r8ght there with you on benifit of doubt while realizing he's under qualified on paper. It really looks like Trump is taking the whole "drain the swamp" thing serious with this pick. I think in order to be qualified on paper for a position like that, there's a higher probability that you are part of that swamp. This higher lowers that chance in my opinion. Someone like me who thinks corruption in Wahington is a huge problem sees this hire as a good sign.

As far as Gaetz goes. It's probably unfortunately another example of a party over correcting too far the other way. I don't know enough about him to say for sure. At some point, someone needs to buck that trend and go directly to the middle.

I listened to a video Trump posted the other day about the transgender issues. For the first half of the video I was agreeing with everything he said. Stopping all the things that went too far. Then he starts saying shit like making it mandatory there's only two genders in the United States. And I'm like "God damnit Trump, now you're going too far the other way"!

 

[CP87]

To piggy-back on this.

In conversations I've had with numerous people of different political ideologies, I would say that most on the right recognize the need to move away from fossil-fuels but feel that the almost religious-like fervor with which the left approached it, and the rapidity of the changes, were over-the-top and counterproductive.

Ironically, by preaching to the masses and steamrolling their agenda, the left actually may have damaged the incentive to be more "green." The transition needs to be much more gradual, and done so in a way that maintains our energy independence.

I think the left has harmed their own interests in a number of different areas by being snobby ideologues.