Such as?
> I also don't see why you would Trump will actually listen to you. Because he says so? You trust what he says?
I'm not talking about Trump listening. I'm talking about liberals listening to trump supporters trying to explain to them why they lost, and why they feel they are taking away freedom of speech.
> I understand and will not debate that you feel like you haven't been heard by the American political system (I immediately take your word for it), but that just doesn't mean the alternative to staying on the same path isn't significantly worse. Or do you think your life couldn't be any worse? Worse is _also_ an alternative you may have voted for.
The past 15 years have been a disaster. War, humanitarian crises, terrorism. I mean its always been a cruisy life for a white male software engineer though. But I just can't stand irrationality (as I perceive it), but more than anything the biggest risk is the attacks on freedom of speech through the liberal's bullying, public shaming, and ad-hominem attacks.
Well, I'm thinking mostly same sex marriage, maybe the freedom of religion (which seems to be OK for most, unless you're a muslim). Trump promises a conservative SCOTUS nomination, so everything that comes out of that as a side effect has a risk of people's rights being take away, mostly the progress made under the Obama administration
> I'm not talking about Trump listening. I'm talking about liberals listening to trump supporters trying to explain to them why they lost, and why they feel they are taking away freedom of speech.
OK screw people who want to take away your freedom of speech (but I admit that I don't know exactly what the problem you mention is, because I don't live in the US) but the point still stands as far as I'm concerned: I understand that you're pissed off, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to abuse the presidential elections, unless (of course you really agree with Trump's ideas, in which case I understand a vote for the man), obviously. I seriously doubt it'll lead to any improvement for this group of people, which would certainly make me wonder what the _next_ elections would look like.
>The past 15 years have been a disaster. War, humanitarian crises, terrorism.
I'm confused. There's a large group of white males that feel left behind, and that's because of war, humanitarian crises and terrorism? Not things like a very high unemployment rate (it's <5%, doesn't seem very high?) And if it's about war, humanitarian crises and terrorisme, you vote _Trump_, who has the tendency to throw oil on the fire, to fix that? How is this outcome REALLY going to make your life better? Do you honestly believe it will, and if so, how?
I mean, I hate irrationality as much as you do, but I'm still trying to understand the issue, and why exactly it's all Clinton's fault and how Trump is going to help? (I mean, a possibly rich businessman is not really part of the angry group so I don't see how it makes sense that Trump would represent a group he treats poorly)
Trump: The Supreme Court has issued an opinion on this. Same-sex marriage is an issue that should have been decided by the states.
There are many LGBT supporters of Trump. Milo Yiannopolous is a hero amongst all Trump supporters, and he is gay. The world has moved on - Democrats just want something to be angry about.
> Freedom of religion
It is about terrorism and not about religion.
> He would "suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies."
One of his closest friends [Thomas J. Barrack Jr.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Barrack_Jr.) spoke at the RNC on the last day. He is Lebanese.
Lets throw in all the misogyny stuff too?
His daughter runs his company. His sister is a US District Judge.
You have been sold such a story by the media and the campaign here.
> Trump promises a conservative SCOTUS nomination
So would any Republican, and by replacing Scalia, it will be the same situation as existed during the Obama years.
---
> I'm confused. There's a large group of white males that feel left behind, and that's because of war, humanitarian crises and terrorism?
You see what happened here. You just injected this narrative of "left behind" as the primary reason for the election loss. I never mentioned anything about being "left behind". Again, you are listening to the media rationalise what happened, and they are the ones who brainwashed you in the first place. This narrative means the liberals are not wrong, its just a bunch of people feeling left behind and angry - just an emotional response to the liberals righteous path. This is very frustrating - but the Trump victory is so sweet, because now we don't have to care if they still can't understand it - it will keep them out of power for even longer.
> you vote _Trump_, who has the tendency to throw oil on the fire, to fix that?
Trump is anti-war. Clinton is pro-war. She advocates intervention. Confrontation with Russia. Trump says: "wouldn't it be great if we got along with Russia?".
Ask Wikileaks, they are extremely anti-war and they will tell you that Clinton is the danger here.
> a possibly rich businessman
Your words are dripping in vitriol. A "possibly" rich businessman. You might not realise it but everything you say is straight from the narrative that the media and DNC sold. Next is bringing up that he had 4 bankruptcies. Or that he is out of touch because he received a 1MM loan - which anyone could have turned into a billion dollars. I don't mean to offend here or anything.
> but I'm still trying to understand the issue
The issue is that you live in a liberal echo chamber. It is social suicide to openly support Trump. Even if you wanted to support some of his ideas, it would put you at risk of losing friends. I certainly didn't openly support Trump. The silent vote was real.
We are called racist, but no one is racist. We are called xenophobic, but all we are asking for is that the laws are upheld.
There is a progressive movement in this country that is taking shape on college campuses and will become mainstream some day, and they do not believe in the constitution or the laws of the land.
Where we see borders between countries that should be secured, they do not want the borders at all.
Where freedom of speech is the inalienable right, they are pushing a socialist agenda where everyone is equal no matter what the realistic implications of that are, and whether freedom of speech is trampled.
I believe they are wrong because they think with their hearts and don't for see the consequences of their actions.
Just to take one minor example: Milo Yiannopolous is a racist bully. That's literally the only thing most people who have heard about him know about him. "Milo Yiannopolous? Isn't he that racist bully who picked on the actress from the 'Ghostbusters' movie?"
You calling that "bro" a hero is a racist thing to do: congratulations you're being racist on the Internet.
PLONK
I can't comment for the States as I live in Europe... but 99% of the big vocal trump supporters at this side of the ocean are racist and xenophobic like there is no tomorrow. In this country the only political trump supporters are the ones that has historic ties with the nazi's. That the most vocal European Trump supporters at political sides are in most case from extreme right political parties is also very telling.
So yeah it could be that you aren't racist or xenophobic but his message also really speaks to racist all over the world and that is fact.
If this were about terrorism and not religion, he wouldn't want to close the border for muslims but for terrorists, I would presume?
Replacing Scalia with a less conservative judge would be a win for democrats but it's fair game to have a different opinion. For me, however, it is most certainly a reason not to like a Trump presidency (though it has absolutely zero influence on me personally, obviously).
Trump did support the Iraq-war, unless he was lying when he replied "Yeah I guess so" when he was asked the question. Furthermore, he proposed a war crime to solve terrorisme when he proposed to kill terrorist family members (again; in a phone interview) and engages in such anti-war speech as "We'll bomb the hell out of ISIS", which, I would say, is pretty much waging war (not that I think we should just let ISIS slide...). So I don't agree with the sentiment that he's anti-war. Hopefully he's only not pro-war, like Bush was.
I said "possibly rich businessman" -- which I cannot for the LIFE of me understand why you'd call those words "dripping in vitriol" -- because I personally find it very suspicious that on the one hand he boasts about how succesful and how rich he is, and on the other hand he keeps the evidence firmly hidden. You're free to not find that shady, obviously.
I'm sorry if you lost friends over your political preference; I would certainly not have been one of them, that I promise you. But I do think you're misreading me: I'm doing my very best to stay rational (indirectly at your own request) and polite, so it's really unnecessary to feel attacked or anything. You're very much _free_ to support Trump, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
"lock that bitch up" - Her gender is irrelevant to her corruption so it does not make sense for it to be here.
People are not chanting "lock that bitch up". They are chanting "lock her up".
"crooked Hillary" - She has been under active investigation for almost the entire campaign, and the Clintons have been their entire careers.
I don't see any problem with this. As long the same standard applies to both candidates.
Noting that it has all been Republican-driven and hasn't yet found a single thing in decades. But it is definitely an excellent "poison the well" tactic.
Do you agree that (1) investigation is not the same as conviction, and (2) that repeating the phrase "crooked Hillary" ceaselessly is a marketing tactic designed to encourage a belief that Clinton is a criminal in order to undermine her legitimacy as a candidate?
The latter strikes me as something that is an essential part of free speech. How would you address 'bullying, public shaming, and ad-hominem attacks' without also attacking free speech in the process?
That's an honest question, by the way.
We say: "Stop calling everything racist and sexist that is not racist or sexist because you are missing the real underlying issues. We want everyone to be happy just like you do, but we think your method is flawed."
Then we win the election because you missed the point.
This is why you will find such exuberant Trump supporters. There are many tears of joy being shed on the Trump side because of this.
Can you recognize the parallel between your statement and the one I've paraphrased above?
