The internet has been such a nasty place today and, similarly to the day of the Paris attacks, it's been really nice to find reasonably moderate discourse on HN.
As... curious as I personally find America's choices in presidency, I'm just as ashamed of some of my follower feeds on various social media. Seriously guys, don't demonize people, especially by association. Refusing to hear your political opponents out is a sure-fire way to lose.
Not living in the US, I don't really meet people who support Donald Trump. I'm probably living in a bubble, which isn't a great feeling--but at the same time, it's hard to credit the democratic process when you can't understand the alternative view.
No doubt this is a symptom of polarization. Maybe this is the famed "filter bubble". In an ideal world one would imagine social media would help bridge that gap, but I'm unsure it has.
Tapping into, encouraging and formenting the groundswell of American anger - mostly against demonized minority groups - is, sadly, his modus operandi.
My only hope for America is that his presidency is nothing like his campaign.
I heaetily suggest actively seeking out opposing views and training your filter bubble to give them to you. It's refreshing and often frustrating and upsetting, bud fundamentally a good thing.
So it's the traditional filter bubble, not the social media bubble.
Did I read any pro-Brexit arguments? Hmm. I read a fair amount of fairly wonkish economic arguments--as with trade barriers, however, it seems that most professional policy experts (and most economists) are generally pro-free-trade and don't have much to say on this being good policy.
Again, maybe my perception is a bit off, but I see this as similar to climate change arguments: the science (especially when it comes to macroeconomics) is imperfect, but if you restrict yourself to those with some academic qualifications, you see a very different picture than if you read political opinion.
You could've gone to /r/the_donald. Beside the memes, there were many threads for each podesta email-leak, linking specific comments/sentences for deplorable dnc doings.
But you instead went to cnn, where it is illegal to think for yourself. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A )
Now, it will be the Hillary supporters that need to create new accounts to defend her.
I don't watch CNN. Not a big fan of TV news.
Knock it off.
Knock it off.
She's literally a demon! She's running a child trafficking ring! She's covering up multiple murders! Black helicopters! Mind control drugs! It's the Alex Jones shit that's infected people and they're not even in the same reality.
You can't have a rational discussion with an irrational person.
This election wasn't about women. This election wasn't about immigration, or minorities. This election was about the working class (blue-collar folks) feeling like they're getting shafted by government.
I live in what's usually a heavily Democratic state, Michigan. This year it'll probably go for Trump. Not because of Muslims, not because of terrorism, but because of the economy.
For years, these people (mostly white, blue-collar workers) have been told the economy's doing great for most people, free trade is great for most people, unemployment is low for most people, and the ACA helps most people.
However, for these folks, they see themselves as not part of that most people that are benefiting from our economic policies. All they hear from the establishment is the same bullshit "promises" and corporatism that they've been given for the past 30 years.
They're sick of it. They're sick of Democrats and Republicans toeing the same line, deferring to "the market" and not doing anything about it.
Donald Trump had answers. Whether those are the right answers remains to be seen (my guess is they're not). Trump said what they wanted to hear, and wasn't afraid of pissing off the establishment along the way. That's what these folks want.
They didn't vote for Donald Trump the person, they voted for Donald Trump the personality.
I find some of that quite surprising.
Unfortunate as it may be, when you are not the target of bigotry or misogyny, it's much easier not to see those issues as a deal breaker, even if you disagree with them.
Remember that, when it's not self-interest, the only thing that makes those issues a deal breaker is empathy. Today's world has very little empathy; the US especially, with its corporate-centric philosophy.
It's not that surprising.
(what follows isn't a disagreement with the above posters, just a remark for context)
I vehemently disagree with their reasons (such as they are) for voting for Trump, but reducing the explanation of their behavior to bigotry---the easiest, most accessible, most self-affirming, and most totalizing explanation available to isolated liberals---misplaces the real problems and thus opens to misguided solutions. Yes, the Trump supporters who make the news are terrible people, and there are many of them. But they aren't over half the country. Explaining Trump's success -primarily- in this way is a failure of empathy on the part of liberals, a failure to understand the majority of the country as decent, caring human beings just like you and I who have, in fact, gotten shafted. Almost all economic recovery the past few years has gone to major cities and life for rural communities is only getting worse. We all know here that Clinton had proposals for addressing this (a 500 billion injection into infrastructure for example), but, for better or for worse---okay, for worse---Trump is who connected on this sentiment.
Everyone knows Trump is a wild card---to put it kindly---who has no concrete policies, but it's worth remembering that the main focus of his victory speech last night was promising to bring back the New Deal, for a "socialist" program of government supported work, to distribute jobs across the whole country by fiat. Whether he will make good on his word and can then force it through the Republican establishment in Congress and whether it will then work all remains to be seen.
One striking observation to me is the lack of ideological purity in Trump's economic plan. You (correctly) describe it as socialist.
Similarly, Hitler's economic views were inconsistent or incoherent. He ran vehemently against "Marxist" socialists and against "Jewish" capitalists, arguing that the Marxists were acting as a front for the capitalists. Meanwhile, he inflated unemployment numbers, claimed the economy was doing worse than it was, and promised infeasible fixes devoid of specificity.
I'm not arguing all of Trump's supporters are primarily motivated by bigotry. But I think they're willing to tolerate bigotry in the name of economic progress, and unfortunately they may get the bigotry without the progress.
This is a hallmark of Fascist ideology. There is no internal consistency or coherency, only political expediency and appeals to emotion/fear.
Disclaimer: I couldn't get over Trump's character issues personally, and I don't for a moment believe that even when he says exactly what I want him to say that he believes it and will act on it in a responsible manner. But I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out what's in the minds of people who will vote for him, and these are things I've come to believe.
Trump set a new standard for blatantly lying about many issues - 51% vs 12% for Clinton according to Politifact. From what I have read/heard, voters either buy into the lie, don't care, or understand that Trump is just saying what he needs to say to get elected.
Fact checking was meant to end this behavior but instead we are reached the point where a candidate can have a 51% rating and still win.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
It was about immigration in part. I've been hearing variations of your comment from many sources for a while now and I think it reflects the establishment's fears that Trump might actually fix immigration. And by fix, I mean "reduce to non-insane levels".
Anyway, he absolutely got the nomination by being the only credible candidate to denounce illegal immigration in particular, and if he doesn't deliver on that, there are going to be a lot of pissed-off Trump supporters, blue collar or otherwise.
...
Other people mention bigotry or whatever. As far as I'm concerned, in-force policies such as massive 3rd world immigration and affirmative action are institutional bigotry of the most brazen and damaging sort, aimed deliberately at this country's founding stock, including me. This isn't make-believe bigotry, or sticks-and-stones bigotry, but real life bigotry, with force of law. Liberals are mostly unable to process this kind of thinking in any coherent way, but try to understand it in the adage, "Even a worm may turn." And we're the worm.
That has little to do with how many generations you've had to live in the US before you qualify as "founding stock."
(Out of curiosity, though, where is your cut-off line? Is it only first-generation immigrants, or somewhere farther back? I haven't heard this "founding stock" argument before.)
You simply have a job crisis. Everybody does, don't feel singled out :)
1) Trump is easier to predict than Hillary. Based on a bunch of the email leaks and leaks about the Clinton foundation, she's getting lots of money from foreign countries, which might cause her to make decisions that are bad for the United States for reasons unknown to me. Trump likes power and money. I can understand those motivations and can work with them.
2) Clinton is generally a lot more hawkish than Trump. Forgive me for being crude, but I'd rather Trump grab hundreds of p*ssies than engage in sabre rattling with Putin. She has promised to retaliate against Russia with no definitive proof that it was Russian hackers or Russian attempts to monkey with the election. Trump on the other hand wants to make friends with Putin, and he has said that North Korea is China's problem, which I think is a really good way of dealing with the situation. Especially since Russia has just debuted an ICBM called the "Satan 2", which is able to destroy either Texas or France with just one missile.
3) Trump is against illegal immigration. A lot of people tend to think of the wall as a literal proposal, instead of just a metaphor of making illegal immigration more difficult. Trump has indicated recently that he wants to restrict deportations to illegal immigrants who commit crimes in the US, which seems eminently fair to me. Hillary doesn't really have as much of an answer except for sweeping amnesties.
4) LGBT issues. Trump took a lot of flak for supporting LGBT people from the republican party. He also proposes restricting immigration and "extreme vetting" from the countries that tend to export people who believe in sharia law and stone homosexuals and rape victims. I think it's ridiculous that we're up in arms about bathrooms in North Carolina, while one of the major candidates in our party gets millions from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
And one last point, which might count me as running down the other party.
I just don't like Clinton supporters. They're really shrill and righteous, and if you don't agree with them on everything you're automatically a racist and a bigot. It's difficult having a civil discussion with them, and I don't want to put myself in the same camp as them. Also, they're incredibly histrionic. "Trump is literally Hitler" and "I'm moving to Canada/Europe." And the best is "I can't believe half of this country is populated by xenophobic racist bigots. If you support Trump I want nothing to do with you." Last I checked, calling people names is not a good way to rally support to your cause.
1) the tough talking, america first attitude. I think this attracted a number of people simply due to the 'feeling' it gave them.
2) the desire for change. anti-establishment, anti-washington, anti-'what was before'. this was seen in Bernie's rise, and Brexit. so it almost didn't matter what Trump did or say at that point, he was the messenger of change and people were hungry for it.
3) blue collar workers & economy. If you feel like you've been left behind, and the govt isn't helping, well Trump's message definitely resonated better than HC.
So those are a bit of what I'm sensing at this early stage of my understanding. I'm sure more will reveal itself throughout the coming days, months, years. However, to your specific points as to why you supported Trump:
1) Trump is easier to predict? I find this truly hard to believe. He is almost entirely unpredictable at this point. He ran on the Republican ticket, but he's hardly your standard Republican. He says he's not free trade, yet wants to do things to help big business, yet wants to impose huge tariffs and taxes on businesses that outsource and offshore to save money. IMO, these are somewhat contradictory. I honestly feel like Trump just echo'ed the anger of a certain group in the country, regardless of what he personally believes, or thinks he can implement.
So on the case of predictable, I disagree strongly.
2) Clinton has been hawkish in the past, and generally leans towards US intervention, I'll give you that. However, there are also examples of her using actual diplomacy to achieve results ( Iran deal, like it or not ).
Trump has said some really outlandish things as it comes to foreign policy. Encouraging the proliferation of nuclear weapons, abandoning our allies, letting certain parts of the world fend for themselves. I personally think there's a fine balance between being imperialistic and trying to keep the world peace. To say it's China's problem to deal with North Korea, so South Korea/Japan/Taiwan can go fend for themselves is a very narrow view of the world. I think this type of inward behavior actually leads to bigger/larger potential wars down the road.
3. Illegal immigration, OK clearly he built his platform on this. But this is again an issue where nothing with him is clear. He never presented a clear proposal no what he intends to do on immigration besides being tough and building a wall. And to say HC wants sweeping amnesty is inflaming and misleading the debate rather than moving it forward.
4. This is just strange to use this as a reason for Trump. I mean he said a couple things on LGBT, but if you follow this through his SCOTUS noms will play a huge role on the rights and privileges of that demographic going forward.
I certainly am not trying to bash your entire premise for Trump, like I said in the beginning I am trying and reading to understand his rise, and some of it is becoming apparent.
And I do hope he leads from the center and backs away from his more extreme views. And I do hope he succeeds as a president. But I am honestly confused by some of your points, as much as they might match with his campaign rhetoric, they do seem to crumble upon examination.
Well, he didn't get much out of his Republican alignment. The party rejected him. I don't think he's pro big business per se, as more protectionist. Viewed in that light, it makes perfect sense. American companies making products consumed in America should employ Americans. He's remarkably consistent when it comes to that.
> Trump has said some really outlandish things as it comes to foreign policy. Encouraging the proliferation of nuclear weapons, abandoning our allies, letting certain parts of the world fend for themselves.
Trump is a negotiator. He always comes to the table with outlandish proposals and expects to be talked down. I think that's one thing people don't seem to fully realize, how many caveats his statements have. China/Russia/Taiwan won't be offended at his statements, at least not enough to start a shooting war. They'll realize it as what it is, a negotiating gambit to try to stake out a stronger position at the table, and they know how to play the game.
> But this is again an issue where nothing with him is clear. He never presented a clear proposal no what he intends to do on immigration besides being tough and building a wall.
This is true. And also a source of misunderstanding. He won't take office until January. Why would you nail down policy proposals now that you might have thrown back in your face later if the situation changes? It'd be like saying in your job interview what you'd be doing at your job that you start 3 months for now. You'd probably say "These are the main goals I want to accomplish, I'll figure out the rest of it once I get the lay of the land".
> but if you follow this through his SCOTUS noms will play a huge role on the rights and privileges of that demographic going forward.
Nowhere in the Constitution are LGBT rights enshrined. The judicial branch interprets the law, the legislative branch passes the laws, and the executive branch enforces the laws.
Trump simply said that he supports LGBT people to the fullest extent of the law (or words to that effect). I prefer that over Clinton, who gets lots of money from regimes that prefer a harsh line against practicing homosexuality.
At a high level, I think the difference I see between jimmywanger's arguments and my own view (and probably dtien's) is, perhaps unfortunately, the starting assumptions about Trump as a person. Jimmy, you're arguing that Trump "is a negotiator" who "comes with outlandish proposals and expects to be talked down." Correct me if I'm mischaracterizing, but it seems like you, in general, assume the crazier things Trump has said aren't meant seriously, and that the man is for the most part a competent and rational actor.[4]
I've heard this other places, and often the conversation turns back to Trump's business career. Supporters seem to believe that he's not especially serious about the more extreme proposals he's made (a wall, a Muslim ban, pulling out of NATO); opponents believe he is. Supporters suggest that Trump's business career shows he is a serious, rational person; opponents believe his business career is mostly a sham. (This latter argument often involves doubts about his net worth[1], questions about his performance against the market[2], etc.)
I do think, Jimmy, that you're extending the benefit of the doubt to Trump in a way you don't to Clinton. Trump's public statements on LGBT rights are mixed-to-negative[3], whereas Clinton's are fairly clear. Yet because the Clinton Foundation takes Saudi contributions you assume Clinton is opposed to LGBT rights, and you assume otherwise about Trump?
To me, this is perhaps the heart of the matter, in the sense that Trump supporters seem, often, to (thankfully) not support some of the things Trump says at face value--but instead, they give him the benefit of the doubt that opponents do not.
I'm a bit too busy (and you can see I already wrote a fucking novel here) to go point-by-point, though I appreciate your detail. It sheds some light. There are a couple of specific issues I have questions on, I think:
1. Foreign policy: I think the aspect that worries me the most here is Trump's apparent "my way or the highway" view. Proponents view this as a negotiating tactic, but there are cases where this is genuinely concerning. Two stand out to me: the Paris environmental deal, and the Iran nuclear deal. In both cases, do you think that renegotiating these deals will lead to a better outcome? Congressional Republicans have been arguing for tearing up the Iran nuclear deal, which seems highly likely to make the world less safe.
2. Immigration: Trump is, presumably, in favor of greater restrictions on legal immigration and greater deportations[5]. Many Americans are, and so this may (for me) merely be a point of fundamental disagreement. But to be clear, do you merely support deporting "criminal" immigrants (i.e. felons), or do you believe it's necessary to deport as many undocumented residents as possible?
Finally, regarding the "Satan 2", to add some perspective: https://www.inverse.com/article/15826-why-you-shouldn-t-be-w.... There's a bit of posturing here, but to be clear, the nuclear balance between Russia and the US should not be viewed as changed.
Thanks again for your thoughtful replies. It makes me feel a lot better to talk to an actual human with whom I have some disagreements. (Happy to continue by email, by the way, but I don't want to post my email on HN, so you'll have to share one of yours. ;) )
1: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/05/donald-trump-net-wort... 2: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-09-03/should-do... 3: http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-... 4: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/many-trump-supporter... 5: http://www.vox.com/2016/11/9/13572030/donald-trump-immigrati...
> Two stand out to me: the Paris environmental deal, and the Iran nuclear deal. In both cases, do you think that renegotiating these deals will lead to a better outcome? Congressional Republicans have been arguing for tearing up the Iran nuclear deal, which seems highly likely to make the world less safe.
I think that renegotiating is always a good idea. Starting off on one extreme and then making concessions is one way of negotiating, and one that I think is the best. That way the person you're negotiating with doesn't quite know how far they can push you, and you might get concessions you might not otherwise get. And it's just renegotiating - nothing is set in stone. Once you start making definitive statements, you start painting yourself in a corner. Since renegotiations under Trump will start at the earliest in 3 months, why would you commit to a course of action now? Lots can change in 3 months, and you don't want your words thrown back in your face.
> But to be clear, do you merely support deporting "criminal" immigrants (i.e. felons), or do you believe it's necessary to deport as many undocumented residents as possible?
I would argue that semantically, all undocumented residents are "criminal", as in technically they're breaking the law being here. Now that being said, they do provide a large boost to our economy, so I guess the answer is "it depends". Not to sound too cold-blooded, but a lot of illegal immigrants seem to feel entitled to life in the United States while they are breaking the law. "We've lived here decades and worked very hard! We should be citizens." They fail to realize that they are uninvited guests in our country right now, and we are fully within our rights to send them back to their countries of origin. Once again, Trump has done a great job of not getting nailed down to one specific course of action, because like I said before, a lot can change in 4 months, and he'll get a lot more information once he becomes president.
> Yet because the Clinton Foundation takes Saudi contributions you assume Clinton is opposed to LGBT rights, and you assume otherwise about Trump?
Also she advocates for the intake of refugees from primarily fundamentalist Islamic countries, many of whom believe in Sharia law. Trump has softened his immigration stance on Muslims to be "extreme vetting" for countries known to be jihadi hotbeds. Those are the countries most oppressive to LGBT rights, and I think it's good that we restrict immigration from there.
Specifically regarding how immigration relates to LGBT rights: Is there any statistical link between anti-LGBT hate-crime and immigration from Muslim countries?
Perhaps more to the point, if LGBT activists (HRC in particular) don't feel the same way, how do you explain that? Do they not realize Trump is (despite opposing their marriage rights and opposing protecting them from discrimination) actually their ally? I find that claim startling.
Regarding illegal immigrants, it's a tough issue. I thought www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/31/untangling-the-immigration-debate was a good broad summary of thought here. I will say that I disagree with the criticism of "entitlement." It's hard to know what you would do in their shoes, but I think it's obvious that all humans have some entitlements to some rights, and, even if we find it necessary to enforce a certain law, we should be aware of the human motivations behind such actions.
> Specifically regarding how immigration relates to LGBT rights: Is there any statistical link between anti-LGBT hate-crime and immigration from Muslim countries?
Not any studies I'm aware of. From a personal standpoint, no scientific basis, I do believe that if you immigrate to a country, you should be willing to accept that country's norms and prevailing beliefs. 52% of British Muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/) If you take a look, certain countries have high percentages of muslims who think they should have sharia law implemented. (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/22/muslims-and-...) Should we prevent people from those countries from immigrating without severe checks? I personally think so.
> Do they not realize Trump is (despite opposing their marriage rights and opposing protecting them from discrimination) actually their ally? I find that claim startling.
Trump I don't think really cares one way or another. If you look at his previous interviews, he says that he doesn't care if you're gay as long as you're smart and tough, he'll hire you. And you might want to read some of Scott Adam's blog posts. He postulates that the Clinton campaign has been so effective as painting Trump as "literally Hitler" that you can sort of stick any sort of bad image about him to him easily. Hence the racism, bigotry, etc etc.
> I will say that I disagree with the criticism of "entitlement." It's hard to know what you would do in their shoes, but I think it's obvious that all humans have some entitlements to some rights, and, even if we find it necessary to enforce a certain law, we should be aware of the human motivations behind such actions.
I agree with the human motivations, but I am a bit more callous in that I don't really care. For me, illegal immigrants are a bit like squatters in properties they don't live in. Just because they took care of the house for a while doesn't mean that they can live there because they really really want to and they've done it for so long.
And just a little note. Trump does have a point that Mexico is not sending us their best and brightest in illegal immigrants. It's hard crossing the border, and quite dangerous. If you were educated and skilled, you'd probably stay in Mexico or try to emigrate legally. The people who are forced to try to immigrate illegally generally don't have much to offer the United States, sadly enough. Somehow that's racist?
It's weird to me to characterize the candidate's willingness to ban people who might potentially be more anti-gay than the prior as a pro-LGBT position, especially in comparison to a candidate who supports laws that actually advance and protect gay rights.
(Anyway, what about gay immigrants from Muslim countries? Surely those coming from countries with repressive laws are most deserving of admission, no?)
In your reply, you sort of beat around this bush, I think. Yes, you can paint Trump a lot of ways (though I think much of that owes to what the man himself says), and yes, immigrants from conservative religious societies may be less prone to support liberal values, but the candidate himself also does not support those values. He opposes gay marriage. He opposes anti-discrimination legislation. http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-.... Surely the candidate's own statements on policy matter, don't they?
I think accusations of racism are not made quite so lightly. But Trump did claim that he saw "thousands of Muslims celebrating" in New Jersey after 9/11. He did claim illegal immigrants are "rapists and murderers", when statistically they commit fewer violent crimes than the control. The anti-immigration arguments often do take a racial tone, as when people complain about "press 2 for Spanish" or when a (Hispanic, yes) Trump supporter warned of "taco trucks on every corner".
I doubt racism is your motivation, or that of many supporters. But I am surprised and worried when Trump supporters don't identify the ambiguously (or, in the case of David Duke, not so ambiguously) racist motivations of their comrades-in-arms or their candidate himself.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on...
The most concise and clearest explanation I've read, also written before the result.
There are similar stories in other sectors. Economic protectionism hasn't really been in either party's platform for a long time, and during that time American workers took a severe beating. Then Trump came along and started making promises.
* More precisely: Tim Kaine proposed a bill to double the size of the H1B program and Hillary has been in bed (donation-wise) with Tata, Wipro, and the like for the last decade at least. When asked for her position, she maintained strategic silence or dodged the question.
First off, I do not like Donald Trump and did not vote for him.
That said:
It's not "racist", "misogynist", or any other kind of "ist" for a factory worker in Ohio to believe that he shouldn't have to compete with Chinese slave labor.
Nor is it "racist", "misogynist", or any other kind of "ist" for an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia to take exception to being lectured on his "white male privilege" by an academic who's never done a hard day's labor in his life, or to be upset by seeing the industry that's employed his family for generations deliberately destroyed for no reason. The coal is still going to be mined and burned. It's just going to be mined and burned in countries with few, if any, environmental regulations.
Multiply those guys by a few million and you have Trump.
Will Trump actually help these people? Probably not, but he's listening to them. He's at least pretending to care about their concerns. The Democrats (supposedly the party of the working class), on the other hand, have been spending the last few decades demonizing them.
I do think there was quite a lot of bigotry. In particular, I think the campaign repeatedly conflated Muslims with terrorists (to the point that a religious test for immigration was suggested). The candidate also said a number of things that could be construed as misogynistic, though I'm the first to admit that all of this "locker room talk" is probably as much the product of insecure posturing as it is a formulation of any particular view towards women per se--a product of a child-mind exposed to a misogynistic culture, not of a misogynist.
Part of my surprise is that that bigotry is not a deal breaker, as I said in reply to a different comment. Part of my surprise is that the electorate did not detect the unrealistic nature of the policy proposals (such as they are).
I sometimes feel the democratic party uses similar tactics on under-educated minorities; Trump seems to be the first to have the gall to overtly use them to unabashedly target under-educated white males - and to great success.
You have to remember that the other side has spent the last 30 or 40 years calling those guys toothless, ignorant sister-screwing yokels.
Maybe they're tired of only one side being permitted to call people vile names?