Trump supporters, how do you square this?

[justwinbaby]

You don’t have to vote for either. Abstaining is participating.

I can sleep at night because I know I didn’t vote for these morons.

When there’s someone who I think aligns with my views in vote for them. The idea that you have to vote for someone no matter what, and just pick the lesser of the two evils is just asinine. Abstaining is participating.

You don’t have to vote for either. Abstaining is participating.

I can sleep at night because I know I didn’t vote for these morons.

When there’s someone who I think aligns with my views in vote for them. The idea that you have to vote for someone no matter what, and just pick the lesser of the two evils is just asinine. Abstaining is participating.

Yes you could abstain from voting because the character of both candidates is seriously flawed but if you believe one candidate’s policies are significantly better than the other candidate you might want to vote for the candidate based on their policies in spite of their flawed character especially if the other candidate’s policies seem to be absolutely destroying the country. Examples for me would include a wide open border that helps facilitate the trafficking of women and children. Not to mention who knows how many young men who are criminals committing violent crimes and just flat out terrorists looking to harm the USA. Limiting are energy production so inflation rises and we have to depend on other countries for energy. Support for trans surgeries for minors and many other issues.

 

[kicker22]

Interesting, you call yourself a Christian and then in the next sentence the President is a bastard and some Republicans are scumbags. Doesn't sound very Christian like to me.

I don't know based on what I've heard during the campaigning phase and after the election it sounds exactly like what I've been hearing under the "Christian" label. We did after all, just have an elected president selling and endorsing bibles despite while running under a campaign claiming ethical and religious values all while having having rape allegations and convictions, being on a third wife while cheating on the others, and that's not including how he talks about and treats others let alone how many times he's been interjected and photoshopped into religious pictures as some sort of diety. So in my honest opinion, and what I saw this election cycle if Trump can claim to be a Christian, I'm not really sure what sounding very christian like means. But who are we to question anyone else?

 

[kicker22]

A couple of your points make me wonder who you would vote for. You bring up incompetence as an argument against the current administration. So what choice is there? Surely you won’t argue that the Biden administration was competent or that it had a shred of good character. I find that idea beyond mind blowing. Vice President Harris would have been even worse. You say that you’re shocked that anyone who considers themselves a Christian would vote for Trump. I understand why you would think that but again who should a Christian vote for then? Almost all of Biden/Harris policies are contrary to scripture. Let’s take a few steps further. Let’s look at the vice president choices. Are you going to choose Tim Walz or JD Vance when looking for competence or high moral character? I completely understand your opinion that a Christian shouldn’t vote for DJT but I can’t understand how anyone can say that based on the Bible you can’t vote for DJT but voting for Biden/Harris/Walz is perfectly acceptable.

I agree with a lot of this and feel it's the exact reason why I take issue with anyone that plays the religious card in a political setting or on the campaign trail. There is no place for religion in politics primarily because, IMO, to be quite honest they're simply not people that I would consider to have the ethics and morals to say they're the candidate that supports wholesomeness or family values. I think I support the stereotype that politicians are closer to crooks then being what i'd consider those that practice what they preach.

The competency argument I find interesting as well. I totally agree that Biden lacked the capacity to run the country for another term, but based on who Trumps chosen to fill his cabinet I think some of these individuals aren't qualified to run a bake sale let alone the country. Which makes me wonder what exactly is going on inside Trumps head and truly question whether he's competent enough to run things either. To be totally honest, I don't think either of them have the mental capacity to be an effective leader, but luckily for us somehow they're the cream of the crop and that's who we got to pick from.

 

[Westernhawk]

A couple of your points make me wonder who you would vote for. You bring up incompetence as an argument against the current administration. So what choice is there? Surely you won’t argue that the Biden administration was competent or that it had a shred of good character. I find that idea beyond mind blowing. Vice President Harris would have been even worse. You say that you’re shocked that anyone who considers themselves a Christian would vote for Trump. I understand why you would think that but again who should a Christian vote for then? Almost all of Biden/Harris policies are contrary to scripture. Let’s take a few steps further. Let’s look at the vice president choices. Are you going to choose Tim Walz or JD Vance when looking for competence or high moral character? I completely understand your opinion that a Christian shouldn’t vote for DJT but I can’t understand how anyone can say that based on the Bible you can’t vote for DJT but voting for Biden/Harris/Walz is perfectly acceptable.

I think my comments regarding Trump and his appointees have been pretty clear. I find, as many do, Trump and his close associates to be without empathy and maybe even job skills. I also (like many) see many of his unqualified nominees in confirmation hearings this week and shake my head.

It's about the president, but also the people leading massive organizations under him (like HHS). Some of these people have ideologies or financial interests that run counter to the missions of the organizations they'll be leading. That's corrupt, and it's wrong.

It appears you're trying to continue the "my team vs your team" dialogue, and for me, it's not like that. I personally find Trump and his minions to be highly problematic from both a skill level, and also on a values/morality level. For example, RFK is frankly anti-science, not to mention his current lawsuit against a vaccine maker in which he has a financial stake, and the EPA nominee is very clear he's not about protecting the environment. He's on record saying his goal is to increase oil extraction and remove regulations for oil companies.

So, the basic answer to your question is the my options are to not vote, or vote for the candidate opposing him. Since I will never, ever vote for this criminal that has strong authoritarian leanings, my choices are limited.

The Democrats have failed in presenting a great candidate. I chose the candidate who would keep our relationships in the world strong, and respect our own citizens. It's not Trump. I hope that answers your question. If you want to go into a "Kamala is bad" conversation, I won't have much to say because she lost the election and I have stated in many posts why I believe Trump is a malignant narcissist that we'll be lucky to survive.

I do agree with some stances on crime and immigration, but their application of immigration reform is rather brutal. I wish we, as a country, could do better.

 

[Westernhawk]

I agree with a lot of this and feel it's the exact reason why I take issue with anyone that plays the religious card in a political setting or on the campaign trail. There is no place for religion in politics primarily because, IMO, to be quite honest they're simply not people that I would consider to have the ethics and morals to say they're the candidate that supports wholesomeness or family values. I think I support the stereotype that politicians are closer to crooks then being what i'd consider those that practice what they preach.

The competency argument I find interesting as well. I totally agree that Biden lacked the capacity to run the country for another term, but based on who Trumps chosen to fill his cabinet I think some of these individuals aren't qualified to run a bake sale let alone the country. Which makes me wonder what exactly is going on inside Trumps head and truly question whether he's competent enough to run things either. To be totally honest, I don't think either of them have the mental capacity to be an effective leader, but luckily for us somehow they're the cream of the crop and that's who we got to pick from.

I agree with a lot of what you've said. I also agree Biden and Trump were weak, geriatric candidates with questionable capacity to lead. That's actually pretty understandable. I'm sure I will struggle with my current role if I attempt to do it when I'm 80!

At any rate, one area I wanted to point out: you said it was Biden v. Trump, but it was actually Harris v. Trump. One may disagree with Harris on many issues, but she is a lawyer who was an AG, who is relatively young when compared to Biden or Trump. I totally understand why people don't like Harris, but the choice in this election wasn't between two very, very old men with questionable brains.

 

[thedukeofearl]

I second that motion!

SMOKEYROBINSON & the Miracles- I second that emotion

A Classic and My Favorite.

www.youtube.com

 

[Gibsonian]

Our new Defense Secretary is a Fox News reporter who is a drunk and a rapist, a womanizer.

Our new Health Secretary if confirmed is a anti vax ex heroin addict with no experience in this field other than creating conspiracy theories.

Our new FBI director if confirmed makes political children books, promotes the Jan 6 choir, and believes that the Jan 6 violent police attackers were political prisoners.

These and more are the worst ever candidates for important posts in our country. Incredibly lacking in character or experience. It's a pure clown show.

 

[thedukeofearl]

Interesting, you call yourself a Christian and then in the next sentence the President is a bastard and some Republicans are scumbags. Doesn't sound very Christian like to me.

What is wrong with what he is saying

Difficult to believe that a Christian would support his policies

 

[thedukeofearl]

I'm curious who you think are the radical scumbags that have taken over the Republican Party.

How many maga terrified republicans are in the House and Senate

his Cabinet picks are completely off the charts, perhaps the absolute worst possible for
the majority of his heinous choices

If you are not concerned by his picks, perhaps you should take a Cold Bath and reevaluate
the situation

 

[kicker22]

I agree with a lot of what you've said. I also agree Biden and Trump were weak, geriatric candidates with questionable capacity to lead. That's actually pretty understandable. I'm sure I will struggle with my current role if I attempt to do it when I'm 80!

At any rate, one area I wanted to point out: you said it was Biden v. Trump, but it was actually Harris v. Trump. One may disagree with Harris on many issues, but she is a lawyer who was an AG, who is relatively young when compared to Biden or Trump. I totally understand why people don't like Harris, but the choice in this election wasn't between two very, very old men with questionable brains.

Valid. I said Biden vs. Trump, because I saw Harris as a replacement. Honestly I have nothing against her, but felt she definitely drew the short end of the stick having to put together a campaign a matter of months before the election. To be fair to her I honestly don't know that anyone could have stepped in at the last minute and actually won an election.

 

[Westernhawk]

Valid. I said Biden vs. Trump, because I saw Harris as a replacement. Honestly I have nothing against her, but felt she definitely drew the short end of the stick having to put together a campaign a matter of months before the election. To be fair to her I honestly don't know that anyone could have stepped in at the last minute and actually won an election.

Yes, it was a fail on the Dems part. I think Biden owns part of that blame, because he could've chosen to bow out of the race very early in the game, which would've allowed for more time and a better vetting process for the nomination of the candidate.

I'm amazed that we can't do better as a country, although I totally get why a principled, smart person would steer very clear of politics.

I think Fry mentioned earlier that politicians should have strict term limits, limits on salary, and limits on how they can profit from their position. That sure would help a lot, too. But, it's clearly gone the opposite direction as the richest men in the world stand next to Trump. The new EPA head clearly is working for the oil companies. As our dear leader would say "these are very nasty people. very unfair. SAD!"

 

[kicker22]

I think my comments regarding Trump and his appointees have been pretty clear. I find, as many do, Trump and his close associates to be without empathy and maybe even job skills. I also (like many) see many of his unqualified nominees in confirmation hearings this week and shake my head.

It's about the president, but also the people leading massive organizations under him (like HHS). Some of these people have ideologies or financial interests that run counter to the missions of the organizations they'll be leading. That's corrupt, and it's wrong.

It appears you're trying to continue the "my team vs your team" dialogue, and for me, it's not like that. I personally find Trump and his minions to be highly problematic from both a skill level, and also on a values/morality level. For example, RFK is frankly anti-science, not to mention his current lawsuit against a vaccine maker in which he has a financial stake, and the EPA nominee is very clear he's not about protecting the environment. He's on record saying his goal is to increase oil extraction and remove regulations for oil companies.

So, the basic answer to your question is the my options are to not vote, or vote for the candidate opposing him. Since I will never, ever vote for this criminal that has strong authoritarian leanings, my choices are limited.

The Democrats have failed in presenting a great candidate. I chose the candidate who would keep our relationships in the world strong, and respect our own citizens. It's not Trump. I hope that answers your question. If you want to go into a "Kamala is bad" conversation, I won't have much to say because she lost the election and I have stated in many posts why I believe Trump is a malignant narcissist that we'll be lucky to survive.

I do agree with some stances on crime and immigration, but their application of immigration reform is rather brutal. I wish we, as a country, could do better.

I don't disagree with you on this at all. And I agree that the "my team vs. your team" rhetoric is what's gotten Washington into the position it's in in which nothing gets done. There are leaders out there, the problem is that they'll never be fully endorsed by their party or stand out if they're the ones that are right there in the middle with their views and vote for what they believe in rather then what their party supports.

 

[Westernhawk]

I don't disagree with you on this at all. And I agree that the "my team vs. your team" rhetoric is what's gotten Washington into the position it's in in which nothing gets done. There are leaders out there, the problem is that they'll never be fully endorsed by their party or stand out if they're the ones that are right there in the middle with their views and vote for what they believe in rather then what their party supports.

I work with several people that are brilliant. They are organized, well-spoken, and know how to lead large numbers of people. Unfortunately these folks will never be politicians.

I had the opportunity to be a part of a state's "Governor's fellowship" that introduced a cohort to government service, with the idea that we'd all become people who would contribute to boards, commissions, and even elected office. Two of my classmates are mayors of cities now. At this level, I found these people to be awesome, so maybe there is hope.

At the federal level, it is straight up manure show.

 

[Westernhawk]

I honestly feel that most people want good things for themselves and others. Sure, some people are terrible (racist, frauds, etc). But most people are good.

Personally, I just want competent leadership. A big part of my professional world falls under HHS (including CMS (medicaid and medicare), as well as the CDC and NIH (research and research dollars).

It's super disturbing that the person tabbed to lead HHS doesn't know the basics of how it works. For example:

1. He made incorrect statements about what Medicare Part A does.
2. He made some interesting and incorrect comments about Medicaid (premiums, funding sources, etc).

I totally get why a lay person wouldn't understand how Medicaid and Medicare work. But, the incorrect statements he made revealed that he doesn't even know the most basic things about how these massive programs work. Anyone else concerned? I'm trying to give specific examples, and it's not because I just don't like people.

 

[kicker22]

How many maga terrified republicans are in the House and Senate

his Cabinet picks are completely off the charts, perhaps the absolute worst possible for
the majority of his heinous choices

If you are not concerned by his picks, perhaps you should take a Cold Bath and reevaluate
the situation

The cabinet issue absolutely blows my mind. If, and a big if, he wants to try to convince his doubters that he's as smart as he thinks he is then that all went out the window with his cabinet. Intelligence isn't about being "the smartest person" in the room, but rather surrounding yourself with enough knowledge and diversity to appear that way. There's no shame in surrounding yourself with people that are smarter or more knowledgeable, but when you put together the cabinet that he did in which most selected cabinet members contradict, or lack any experience, in the position they are being put into then there is a serious problem. He's chosen followers and loyalists over credentials and qualifications and that's a recipe for disaster.

 

[Gibsonian]

I honestly feel that most people want good things for themselves and others. Sure, some people are terrible (racist, frauds, etc). But most people are good.

Personally, I just want competent leadership. A big part of my professional world falls under HHS (including CMS (medicaid and medicare), as well as the CDC and NIH (research and research dollars).

It's super disturbing that the person tabbed to lead HHS doesn't know the basics of how it works. For example:

1. He made incorrect statements about what Medicare Part A does.
2. He made some interesting and incorrect comments about Medicaid (premiums, funding sources, etc).

I totally get why a lay person wouldn't understand how Medicaid and Medicare work. But, the incorrect statements he made revealed that he doesn't even know the most basic things about how these massive programs work. Anyone else concerned? I'm trying to give specific examples, and it's not because I just don't like people.

See my post 1067. Sure I have concerns. Anti science anti vax unqualified individual who's cousin laid out a damning historical diatribe describing why she and her family think that RFK Jr is a terrible pick to lead the health of our country. Here's one of Kash Patel's books below. Our FBI director.

 

[Westernhawk]

The cabinet issue absolutely blows my mind. If, and a big if, he wants to try to convince his doubters that he's as smart as he thinks he is then that all went out the window with his cabinet. Intelligence isn't about being "the smartest person" in the room, but rather surrounding yourself with enough knowledge and diversity to appear that way. There's no shame in surrounding yourself with people that are smarter or more knowledgeable, but when you put together the cabinet that he did in which most selected cabinet members contradict, or lack any experience, in the position they are being put into then there is a serious problem. He's chosen followers and loyalists over credentials and qualifications and that's a recipe for disaster.

I nominate this for post of the year.

 

[Gibsonian]

See my post 1067. Sure I have concerns. Anti science anti vax unqualified individual who's cousin laid out a damning historical diatribe describing why she and her family think that RFK Jr is a terrible pick to lead the health of our country. Here's one of Kash Patel's books below. Our FBI director.

View attachment 11267

Kash is the guy with the hood and the magic wand on the left btw

 

[Westernhawk]

See my post 1067. Sure I have concerns. Anti science anti vax unqualified individual who's cousin laid out a damning historical diatribe describing why she and her family think that RFK Jr is a terrible pick to lead the health of our country. Here's one of Kash Patel's books below. Our FBI director.

View attachment 11267

oh lawd.

 

[HuckFinn]

The cabinet issue absolutely blows my mind. If, and a big if, he wants to try to convince his doubters that he's as smart as he thinks he is then that all went out the window with his cabinet. Intelligence isn't about being "the smartest person" in the room, but rather surrounding yourself with enough knowledge and diversity to appear that way. There's no shame in surrounding yourself with people that are smarter or more knowledgeable, but when you put together the cabinet that he did in which most selected cabinet members contradict, or lack any experience, in the position they are being put into then there is a serious problem. He's chosen followers and loyalists over credentials and qualifications and that's a recipe for disaster.

Yup