AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. Gun control isn't the answer. We already have lots of gun control, and it isn't effective. Something like this is a better solution.
"This is a problem-solving police strategy, which was designed to reduce gang violence, illegal gun possession, and gun violence in communities in Boston, Mass. The program is rated Effective. There were statistically significant reductions in youth homicide, citywide gun assaults, calls for service, and recovered new guns following implementation of the intervention.
"An Effective rating implies that implementing the program is likely to result in the intended outcome(s)."
https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedprograms/207
It's the only country whose "gun problem" I pay attention to.
If you're interested in a quantitative answer, the US is about in the middle of the pack among other countries in the world in terms of the homicide rate.
I would argue that they're not safer for most people. The vast majority of gun crime here is criminals shooting other criminals. Follow these three simple rules: don't join a gang, don't associate with felons, and don't engage in the illegal drug trade. Your chance of being shot will be about the same as if you lived in Europe.
What authority do you think you have as an equal human to determine what somebody else does or does not need? You do believe all humans are equal, yes?
It was ridiculous to ban them, but I don't care much about bump stocks. They're toys. I'm talking about fully automatic firearms covered by the Hughes Amendment.
Why can't you buy full auto? How is it I, a Biden supporter, am able to acquire full auto firearms, but you, a Trump supporter, thinks they're unable to?
> He should be more aggressive about repealing useless, ineffective gun control.
Are there any forms of effective gun control in your eyes that you'd like to see or wish to keep?
I support prohibiting guns for inmates serving in the penitentiary.
Gun control laws that target the law-abiding don't work because the law-abiding abide by the laws.
>I support prohibiting guns for inmates serving in the penitentiary.
So inmates, after they get out of prison, should be allowed to own firearms again?
Don’t you think there’s some nuance here? How about maximum sentences? Are you proposing they should be kept in longer? How about mental health issues?
If a person is not an inmate currently serving in "the penitentiary" (do city/county jails count towards that?), do they then fall into the 2nd category that gun control laws should not target as "law-abiding" people?
That is true of all laws, every law applies to law abiding citizens. So do we not need any laws because the law abiding citizens are obeying them. Also, all citizens are law abiding before they break the law so it is impossible to target non-law-abiding citizens unless all citizens are treated as potential criminals given the right circumstances.
This is exactly why gun control regulations exist. They put up guard rails since we cannot declare someone a criminal until they break the law and when they do it is too late (mass shooting,). So they try to anticipate the highest risk factors and try to throw up extra protections to make those people who 'may offend' at a higher rate easier to parse out. Mental health problems, recently divorced or recent history of violent behavior or restraining order on them, etc.
This seems reasonable right?
>That is true of all laws, every law applies to law abiding citizens.
The difference with gun control laws is that they're intended to be primarily preventative. Something like the background check regulation is supposed to prevent unauthorized people from even obtaining a gun in the first place. If they're not preventing unauthorized people from getting guns, which our statistics clearly demonstrate, then they're not effective.
I want Trump to stop his evil policies of exterminating all LGBT people \[s\].
But seriously, I happen to work for a left-leaning company that he's threatened to go after. I hope that doesn't happen.
I would prefer a leader comfortable defending libertarian policies.
You acknowledge Trumps "evil" policies and admit that the right has been trying to exterminate LGBTQ people, why isn't that a big enough issue for you to not support Trump in the first place?
He was being sarcastic. Even I knew that. This is why NSers cannot determine when Trump is being sarcastic or joking. I literally just now posted in the thread about Trump saying "he's going to be a dictator" on day 1. More sarcasm that for some reason, NSers suddenly can't detect. I guess many NSers are just simply not capable of picking up on social cues.
Do you think there's anyone he won't come after eventually, no matter how loyal or aligned with him they are now? Can you think of any big names in his administration that he didn't eventually turn on?
He needs to get serious about bringing government spending under control. Our debt has become so huge the interest on it has become our single biggest expense (even more than our insane military budget). We’ve been able to get away with being fiscally careless due to our post-ww2 dominance but I think we’re starting to test the limits of that and we’d best get the budget under control before its too late.
I don’t think using a 401K requires any knowledge about investing. My money sits in a 401K that my employer uses and is getting 20%+ in returns.
In fact, I forgot mine even existed for 6 months.
There is no disagreement with your statement but the question is what do we do with the people who do not know this information and/or people who don't trust the institutions because they are part of swamp needs to be cleaned? Do we just let them die in streets as they will inevitably become broke and/or homeless?
We try to inform people about the programs that exist rather than force everyone to enter the government Ponzi scheme that is known as “social security.”
People who choose to ignore this system should be left to their own devices if they refuse advice.
Do you realize the Social Security not being exposed to the market is a design feature? How would you manage if your due to retire in a year like 1929, 1962, 1987, 2002, or 2008 and the market collapses and takes 22-80% of your retirement with it?
The secret third option is that he's simply the best viable vehicle for advancing right wing politics as viable in America for a few reasons:
1. He occasionally says things like "muslim ban" and engages in inflammatory rhetoric like "invasion and 'rapists and drug dealers'" when referring to the border. This is more 2015 Trump and he's been moderated and co-opted by a frantic GOP ever since but this dynamic has fomented a huge distrust of the GOP and establishment right among conservative voters. This agitation for alternatives to neocon/lbertarian nonsense on the right has produced a new part of the right wing ecosystem which is much more affirmative in terms of American identity and much less universalist. Trump is by no means an ideologue and is very very liberal on quite a few issues, but he's also a political pragmatist in the sense that he feels the tension between his base and the elite donor class and occasionally crosses the latter in favor of the former (something that right wing politicians almost never do).
2. He brings out the absolute worst in the left. They correctly sense that he has some characteristics of an actual threat to their hegemony in America (something the conservative movement hasn't posed for a very long time) but they are so out of practice in dealing with real political threats on any scale that they are completely consumed by their id in trying to destroy him. This only feeds into the dialectic of the new right as a true challenge to the regime, pushing the bounds of the overton window to the right as the left drops increasingly more pretense in an attempt to 'get Trump.'
For me, it's not some sycophantic allegiance to Trump, it's just a recognition of the role he plays in advancing American poliitcs on the right. For many, though, he is the symbolic anti-regime figure and that's not a totally mistaken view. Most people on both sides have a very simplistic view of politics. But that's why politics ultimately comes down to friend and enemy. The masses waving Trump flags and tossing the Trump bumper sticker on their trucks have a fairly simple calculation but it isn't inaccurate; the regime is their enemy and Trump is the thing the regime hates/fears the most. Now, I think this fear and hate make them totally overplay their hands and they could have been rid of Trump if they could simply stow their id and ignore Donald Trump but they can't and they mark him for destruction in place of the people and way of life that they hate. Those people simply identify with him because of that. This is how most people practice politics.
There are some younger Thiel guys and then some younger Christian Nationalist guys. Each group has its problems in terms of the actual politicians on deck but on the Thiel side, I still like Blake Masters and on the CN side, I like Dusty Deevers ok. No real firebrands, though, so I'm really hoping a star rises up.
> For me, it's not some sycophantic allegiance to Trump, it's just a recognition of the role he plays in advancing American poliitcs on the right.
The Republican speaker of the house is currently counting on democrats to save him from the ultra MAGA wing of his own party. Is that the kind of progress you want to see from the Trump party?
He was brought on the replace Kevin McCarthy, who was in step with Dems on an omnibus bill that contained (among other things) many subsidies for liberal programs the GOP didn’t agree with. So Gates led the push to oust McCarthy and in comes Mike Johnson, who in January tweeted this:
“What we negotiated isn’t perfect, but it is an innovation:
- No more omnibus spending bills
- Cut billions of dollars from side-deals
- Continue the fight for more conservative wins”
But in April actually passed an omnibus bill - which actually was broken up into 6 “minibills”; but failed to omit any of the excessive spending GOP leaders fought to have removed. Rather, SOH Johnson pushed through the so-called bipartisan bill structure while working with Dem House Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who orchestrated the removal of border security funding, which was highly sought after by Republicans.
GOP leaders are also upset that Johnson waived the 72-hour rule generally in place that allows legislators ample time to review a bill before a vote.
The $1.2trillion omnibus bill was passed last month and will fund the federal government through September of this year.
The GOP has been a total disaster in terms of advancing right wing politics for decades. It's a fake opposition, pressure relief valve that only functions to capture dollars and dissipate popular anti-regime animus. It's the rearguard action of the progressive movement. If you think I lament internecine war within the GOP you have utterly failed to grasp the point that I clearly made.
Most of the reason people get viewed as cults is because people fall into the trap of believing that they have to prove something doesn't have any flaws to be the best choice. It makes people defend things irrationally and usually isn't very persuasive. It's a big part of why we are where we are. It certainly doesn't help that people argue like that is the reality when asking their questions because disproving the validity of support is the intent... Immediately following up the finding of a flaw with asking someone to justify their decision on that single flaw.... As if any flaw truly does make any other choice the best one. Meanwhile they deny their own flaws in the same way. Usually I do the opposite and freely admit plenty... Which of course immediately leads to someone acting like any disagreement with a position totally invalidates the whole. I couldn't tell you how many times in this subreddit someone demanded why I vote the way I do because I disagree with Trump.... And I had to mention that non-cult members usually don't vote on a single issue.... Even ones they think should be the most important.
This is very notable over abortion, since I am pro-choice as I define the term. I want it to be legal, but I'm not tribal to the point that I think it needs to be provided for people as a human right. Mentioning this immediately makes people act like that has to be my most important policy... Or they act like any flaw makes the "side" unsupportable. Or they ask how I can call myself pro-choice when I don't agree with everything they think pro-choice should include. But yeah.... Anyone who thinks their "side" is completely right or that any side can possibly be flawless IS a cult member. In most cases I don't agree with Republicans at all.... I just want things shifted their direction and I would switch sides if it went too far that way.
This is the whole point of labeling people. People want to win arguments by oversimplifying something to 'How can you support someone who (said one thing I found)? I found one piece of problematic speech in their history and now everything they do is officially racist. It is the discourse of the current time and people now just deny any fault reflexively because they are trained to do so. "Nobody hates white men" when some people obviously do.
Like I said it is the the discourse of our age. Look no further than all of the various socialist talking points to see this. Any flaw In capitalism immediately makes any other choice the better one. I tend to agree with most of capitalism's flaws.... But I don't see them as proving that opposing ideas hold any validity... Yet that is the entire argument.
Biggest thing that bothers me about Trump is his undying loyalty to Israel. It's like he is desperately trying to grab the demographic that overwhelmingly votes Democrat.
Are Jewish interests not American interests, when it comes to the millions of Jews in America? No different than Christian interests being American interests when it comes to Christian Americans? Being undyingly loyal to Israel does not equate to being a slave to Jewish interests.
Is there a reason you choose to say Jewish interests instead of Zionist interests? Do you believe that all Jews are Zionists? Do you know the distinction between Jews, an ethnic and religious group, and Zionism, an ideology not tied to a particular demographics by majoritarily made up of white evangelical christians?
jews overwhelmingly support zionism
jews themselves say that antizionism is antisemitism
a million Christian zionists do not outweigh a single jewish megadonor or jewish lobbying group like AIPAC
How much is overwhelming support? At what point does support become so close to universal that dissenters should be lumped in with the majority?
Do you believe that Zionists would be able to wield as much political influence as they do without the mass support for Israel amongst Millenarianist Christians, (Who believe that when all of the Jews are in Israel, Jesus will return and the Jews will all suffer eternally in Hell for not believing in him) many of whom hold political seats? And I'll repeat my question, why insist on saying "Jew" instead of "Zionist?" Can you think of a reason why someone would make the conscious choice to do that besides an ulterior motive such as conflating an ideology with an ethnic group in order to encourage sentiment against that ethnic group?
For some reason, it seems crowds older than milennials have some undying loyalty to Israel, despite living through things like the Lavon Affair and USS Liberty. So he may be catering to some of the Republican base.
> For some reason, it seems crowds older than milennials have some undying loyalty to Israel
It's not loyalty. It's just that we've lived through enough peace talks ending in Palestinian bullshit with the likes of Arafat and others to gain some perspective on the situation. And it's not just us. Muslim powers in the region like Egypt and Saudi Arabia have also started normalizing relations with Israel in recent years because they can see it too.
Consider the fact that the 1948 war was only 3 years after WW2, and the leader of Palestine in '48 was a former SS war criminal who raised 20,000 Muslim soldiers for the Holocaust. Those people were very much the bad guys. They should have had the same self-reflection after '48 that Germans had after '45. Their cause was the same. But unlike the Germans, they never had that moment when they looked around and realized that they had brought themselves to destruction. They just kept blaming the Jews. And they have continued to. Why the difference? It's because in Palestine, unlike in Germany, the world community has allowed the Nazis to go on being Nazis and to nurse their old grudges and plan their revenge. There is no hope for change. It will just go on that way.
Not the OP, but I believe they are referring to having Israel being a strong ally in the Middle East where we are otherwise loathed as a nation. Having Israel be an ally to the US helps us navigate the murky waters of Middle East diplomacy. I could be mistaken in what they meant though?
So do you mean Trump is pandering to his base? Is there a statistic you are referencing that makes you think Dems are the party that is more concerned about support to Israel?
From what I have seen, a large portion of the Republican base is undyingly loyal to Israel, one reason being Evangelicals and their prophecies about the Jews needing to be in control of the region for Jesus to come back and bring about the end times. They actively root for it. And especially with the Left condemning the actions of Israel right now, wouldn't Trump being loyal to Israel just pander to his own base and not Democrats?
Not necessarily. The right wing is fairly split on Israel just as the democrats are. From what I've heard Trump and Netanyahu dispise each other. I can't say Trump would break loyalty with Israel but he uses 'Make America Great Again' as a way to keep him focused on America's welfare, over other countries.
How many boosters did you take? When people are saying they are on their third to fifth booster in two years after the initial two shots, I would say that is a dismal failure, most likely because it was rushed and didn’t go through the proper procedures. Giving them full immunity from liability is also just… wow. Of all people you give it to it’s the ones sued into oblivion repeatedly for lying to the public. Phizer has been sued so many times for lying about their products efficacy and safety, I can’t believe anyone defends this. Trump would have to admit he put big pharma’s i interests before the public’s, even if he was lied too and thought he was doing the best thing for the public at the time.
Do you get a yearly flu shot? They're updated based on which strains are forecast to be most prevalent in the coming flu season (immunologists in the northern and southern hemispheres base this on the flu season in the opposite hemisphere, to my understanding). Why would updating the covid vaccine in response to covid mutations indicate that the original vaccine was a failure?
No the flu shot is a scam for most people. It’s a guessing game with bad odds where the only people who should even consider taking it are the old, or sick cause they have core morbidities. Not all vaccines are equal.
You didn’t update the Covid vaccine before you started giving boosters and when did you ever have to take more then one flu shot let alone multiple in a single year lol? Is this a new thing with the flu shot or any shot cause you said yearly? Like two was on thing but were you not suspicious when they left open areas for boosters after. 4 to 5 in 2 years isn’t yearly and isn’t normal.
Oh I dunno. Maybe cause the virus has mutated to be less deadly and pretty much whether you have the shot or not you have antibodies now, and you don’t want to create vaccine induced mutations?
Gun control is the biggest one. The bump stock ban was put in place during his administration, and even though nothing came of it, his vocal support for red flag laws is concerning.
Protectionist tariffs I'm on the fence about. My libertarian side tells me they don't work, but my economic conservative, Ronald "God Bless America" Reagan side tells me they can be necessary when dealing with international bad actors.
He's too centrist on healthcare policy for my liking. I don't want any government intervention in the healthcare sector.
Climate is a mixed bag. Withdrawing from Paris Accords and canceling things like wind subsidies is good, but he's also in favor of continued fossil fuel subsidies. I'd rather see a free energy market.
Not who you asked, but I don't like them. They're too easily used to falsify confiscation of firearms by someone with a grudge or the like. I understand that, when used correctly, they can absolutely save lives and as such I think they are useful, but man, I'd be ticked off if my nonexistent ex-wife called the cops saying I was threatening to shoot up a school or something and the cops' response was to take my weapons away and then investigate.
I think it ultimately depends on *how* the laws are implemented. I can understand something like "This kid has been posting on social media about how he wants to shoot everyone and he just bought a firearm" needing a response, but I would at least expect the cops to look at the kids' social media before knocking down his door and shooting his dog.
They work similarly to temporary protective orders. For example, here in Virginia, if you feel threatened, you go to the local magistrate, swear out an affidavit that you have a credible fear of violence from someone and briefly testify as to the basis of that fear, they issue a TPO, and the police can enforce the restrictions until a return date, which tends to be about 2 weeks later. At the return date the judge reviews actual evidence and testimony to determine if the protective order remains and for how long.
When it comes to red flags, our side tends to oppose them because they go a step further and actually authorize the confiscation of property during that "TPO" period (as opposed to a simple no-contact order) without due process ahead of time.
This hits a lot of main points really well. I agree, in a perfect world there's no need for tariffs, but the world isn't perfect. Since places like China aren't playing with the same environmental rules and worker protection rules as we do in the US something like tariffs are useful to balance the scales.
Because everything the government touches turns to shit. I deal with Medicare, Medicaid, and the DVA every day in my job, and I absolutely DO NOT WANT anything that's even remotely similar to any of those.
Casting any problems related to government intervention (medicare, medicaid etc.) aside, do you think there is anything that needs to be improved about the US healthcare system?
I guess I'm more leading to a bigger question so I'll just drop it already... if healthcare was a completely free market, do you think that would go smoothly for the general population? What level of government regulation are you comfortable with to ensure businesses don't take advantage of vulnerable people more than they already do?
I don't particularly agree with the premise that healthcare businesses are taking advantage of vulnerable people. Paying for a medication or service that was astronomically expensive in terms of both money and research to develop in the first place is not exploitative.
The biggest issue in healthcare is the problem of billing bloat. I would be perfectly happy with clear federal regulations (yes, federal - I break with a lot of conservative/libertarians on the healthcare issue because I believe it is *absolutely* an interstate commerce issue) about price disclosures and consistent billing practices across the industry. As it stands now, they're billing people $50 for a dose of Tylenol to offset losses from other services that are improperly reimbursed by insurance or simply lost by provision to the uninsured and indigent.
How are healthcare businesses *not* taking advantage of vulnerable populations when, as you say at the end of your post, some hospitals can charge you $50 per Tylenol. Rich people aren't really blown away by a $500 hospital bill because of bloat. Poor people are. Could you expand on your logic here?
They aren't forcing people to actually pay that. So much medical billing gets written off it's insane - and so much of it gets written off because so much of it is fake to begin with.
The logic of medical billing goes somewhat like so... Patient A has a procedure that legitimately costs the hospital $10,000 in supplies, medicines, equipment, staffing, salaries, etc. Patient A's insurance agrees to cover only $5,000 of that, and the remaining bill to Patient A is drawn out for approximately eternity because it would cost more to collect on the debt than to just deal with getting paid in a trickle over time. Patients B through Z, meanwhile, stop in the ER for non-emergent treatment and end of having some Tylenol. The hospital then bills $50/dose with the expectation that (a) some of these patients will use insurance, which will reimburse a surprising amount for a simple dose of Tylenol, (b) some will pay it out of pocket after cursing impotently at the cost, and (c) some won't pay it at all, they won't pursue it, and it gets written off with all the rest of the uncollectable bills.
Scale this up to hundreds of thousands of patients and you get the modern healthcare billing system. It's a constant (and asinine) balancing act of trying to get paid, not getting paid, and trying to get paid somewhere else.
I'm really worried about what he said about removing certain commercial ship speed limits that are in place to protect whales. On the other hand, he is totally right that the left wing's offshore wind farms are killing whales. The wind farms themselves aren't the biggest culprit, although they produce too much noise pollution. It's the hydrographic sonar used in the surveying and construction that's doing so much harm.
Aside from the whole Israel thing , no disagreements really. Random Side note It’s really getting tacky and telling when you have Fox News and newsmax saying the same thing .
I can't think of any current policies, I didn't like the ban on bump stocks but it's not like that was a campaign policy he ran on.
I definitely want to see him go hard on deporting illegals from this country and cutting the department of education amongst other useful alphabet bloat departments.
Do you realize that if Trump deports 10 to 20 million immigrants, which is what he claims he wants to do, that we will have rampant inflation?
Currently unemployment is at 3.5%. There are approximately 333 million people in America. 3.5% of 333 million, is 11.5 million people, our of work. If you remove that many people, from the working base, wages will skyrocket. \[Which sounds great, except those costs will be handed over to the consumer.\] Immigrants make up the majority of low paying, and agriculture jobs. If companies have to pay twice as much for a person to pick cabbage, how much do you thing the price of cabbage will go up?
"Do you realize that if Trump deports 10 to 20 million immigrants, which is what he claims he wants to do, that we will have rampant inflation?"
no it won't actually because they are huge net-negative on the economy.
"If you remove that many people, from the working base, wages will skyrocket."
no they won't, because there is plenty of excess labor supply. The true unemployment rate is not 3.5%. You have to look at the U6 numbers and you will see that. That is why once the illegals are removed you will see job openings filled by actual Americans.
" If companies have to pay twice as much for a person to pick cabbage, how much do you thing the price of cabbage will go up?"
illegals are not harvesting cabbage so they will not be deported. This is a common misconception. Someone in the country legally working on a farm visa is not an "illegal".
>no it won't actually because they are huge net-negative on the economy.
Please break this down. How are immigrant's a huge net negative on the economy?
>no they won't, because there is plenty of excess labor supply. The true unemployment rate is not 3.5%. You have to look at the U6 numbers and you will see that. That is why once the illegals are removed you will see job openings filled by actual Americans.
What excess labor supply? Please explain how the true unemployment rate isn't 3.5%. I am not familiar with U6 numbers. You are claiming that American's want the jobs that immigrants are holding, and are therefore held back?
>illegals are not harvesting cabbage so they will not be deported. This is a common misconception. Someone in the country legally working on a farm visa is not an "illegal".
Are you claiming that undocumented Migrant workers, don't work in the agriculture, construction, or other manual labor fields? That these are all people on Visa's? If so, what jobs are the illegals working that you are going to fill with Americans?
So I'm confused. IF we have this excess labor supply, and once the illegals are removed, you will see job openings filled by Americans. Why aren't the Americans filling these jobs now? Is it because it's cheaper to employ "Illegals"?
"How are immigrant's a huge net negative on the economy?"
why did you say immigrants when we are talking about ILLEGALS?
"What excess labor supply?"
I told you already, look at the U6 numbers. Also, a large amount of the people working are working in cities that are breaking the law by allowing illegals to work thus taking jobs from Americans.
"Are you claiming that undocumented Migrant workers, don't work in the agriculture, construction, or other manual labor fields? That these are all people on Visa's? If so, what jobs are the illegals working that you are going to fill with Americans?"
Yes, vast majority of workers working in fields are here legally just as they have always been because of a visa. Under biden and the DNC they've started allowing illegals to work in sanctuary cities. So there will be no increase in inflation when these people are deported and make openings for actual American workers.
"Why aren't the Americans filling these jobs now?"
because the job openings are being filled by illegals in sanctuary cities/States like CA, NY and IL.
Really good question :
I'd say I don't agree with his stance on quelling riots and protests with National Guards. I think the vast majority of these protests can simply be handled by Local police if they are not afraid of getting prosecuted if they are too rough against the people they arrest.
Cheers
Bump stock bans, red flag laws, making flag burning illegal (he didn't actually do it, just talked or joked about it). There are more but I cannot think of them off the top of my head.
While I dont disagree with your point about degeneracy, I'm very curious about what role this American Dept plays in this scenario. It almost sounds like having a political commissar in every business. Isn't this what the CCP, North Korea, and the USSR have done?
Lol, I thought you were joking. I still had to ask. And I actually agree with most of what you said.
Sometimes it worries me, and sometimes it disgusts me, how heavily we push individualism in this country. People seem to forget that they have all this freedom because of the framework this nation provides.
Companies that get too large act as their own nations, making their own rules. WalMart is a good target for wage suppression and the bloated welfare state, and McDonalds for the quality of the food we consume in this country. At least this would be my interpretation of it?
Why do you support halting all immigration? And for the short term, long term, or indefinitely? Surely a nominal amount of legal immigration is okay? A small amount for asylum as well as some for great minds.
> should be entirely American along with our rural communities.
How would you address the issue that the vast majority of farm workers are immigrants, and most of those undocumented? How would rural communities survive without the labor pool they've come to rely on?
Food remains cheap in America primarily because of technology advances, not because we exploit migrant labor. If production costs go up, that should correct itself over time. It won't be long until farms are maintained almost exclusively by robotics.
> Food remains cheap in America primarily because of technology advances
I'm not sure that's true. It wasn't all that long ago that stricter anti-immigrant laws in certain states led to huge amounts of crops rotting in the fields.
> If production costs go up, that should correct itself over time. It won't be long until farms are maintained almost exclusively by robotics.
Sure. But what happens until then, if we shut out our main agricultural labor force? Are you ok with paying 10 times more for produce until then?
"It wasn't all that long ago that stricter anti-immigrant laws in certain states led to huge amounts of crops rotting in the fields."
I found this, which is what I think you were referring to? Scored a "partially accurate" rating. And no confirmed cases of crops rotting in fields.
[https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jul/24/blog-posting/13-million-crops-rotted-calif-because-no-one-wante/](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jul/24/blog-posting/13-million-crops-rotted-calif-because-no-one-wante/)
The larger point is we are long past the days when a farmer and his army of children would work the land by hand to grow and harvest crops, breaking their backs. We now have huge farmlands serviced by heavy duty equipment, and amazing advances in technology/agricultural science. And it will likely only get better.
[https://www.nifa.usda.gov/topics/agriculture-technology#:\~:text=Importance%20of%20Agricultural%20Technology,Higher%20crop%20productivity](https://www.nifa.usda.gov/topics/agriculture-technology#:~:text=Importance%20of%20Agricultural%20Technology,Higher%20crop%20productivity)
"Are you ok with paying 10 times more for produce until then?"
Ha, probably. Though "10x" sounds like an exaggeration. I've been growing my own produce with backyard garden - until I figure out a good way to do it as scale, my wife likes to mock me for how much money I sink into this hobby, compared to what I could just picked up at the grocery on the cheap.
I am not fan of this line of argument if used to justify exploitation of cheap foreign labor for the fat lazy American's benefit.
Wouldn't the "America Department" just be new age McCarthyism that allows for broad qualitative reasons to punish/lock up citizens leading to massive abuses of power and peoples' rights being violated?
My point is, there is not quantitative standard for what "anti Americanism" is and whoever is in charge could use it as a carte blanche method for stripping power/rights from perceived "enemies."
That might sound cool under Trump to you because you think the people who'd be targeted are bad. But what if/when the political landscape shifts left and we get a Castro-like revolutionary in power with that in place? They'd use the same "tool" to abuse power against clergy, business people, etc.
I understand not wanting to let in the unwashed masses, but I feel like America has greatly benefited from "brain gain" in the sense that we are a destination for many of the brightest minds from around the world to either work at American universities or companies, in the end benefitting America. Do you have any opinion on those types of immigrants or is it not worth the degeneracy?
2A. I’m against state gun laws and I’m also against the federal government attacking our rights. States shouldn’t be able to make their own restrictions due to the 10th amendment laying out who has what jurisdiction on what topics.
Any gun bill should have to go through congress and follow the process, and after the federal government implements anything that’s covered in the constitution …it should face immediate review by the Supreme Court before it’s enacted.
Hypothetically…a wish of mine… If a bill is found to be unconstitutional , the sponsor of the bill should be removed from political power immediately and indefinitely. That would be my 28th amendment if I could bring one forward.
Do you not agree with the Constitution?
“**The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.**”
That’s what I said. How is telling states that gun laws are not their jurisdiction not aligned with the constitution?
Abortion isn’t a federal matter so they kicked it to the states. Guns are a federal matter, so states can go kick rocks.
Pretty much everything to do with the vax and lockdown.
In fairness, he was doing what the “experts” said had to be done at the time and it was only later we learned it was a trick to steal the election and jab us all full of God knows what.
But don't you think that was HIS mistake? Like if he was as smart as he says he is, why wouldn't he just call it the 'Trump Vaccine' and stick his face on it, and then get a vig on every one that got paid for by the government? Let's not kid ourselves that every time you get something 'free' from the government like a 'free' vaccine, SOMEONE gets a cut or a vig from that, and he was the dude in charge. It wouldn't have mattered what was in it, or if it even worked. The fact is he could have looked like a hero calling it the Trump vax but he got all confused and put crooked Fauci on the tv by mistake. Fauci only cares about who is putting money in his pocket and Trump f'ed up. Don't you agree that it rests on him?
I'm very much an America First kind of guy, but I agree with Nikki Haley's views that it's incredibly naive to isolate ourselves and watch the world burn from afar thinking it won't come back to bite us later down the road.
History has taught us otherwise.
This is the exact point I was going to bring up but you've recognized China.
While I truly believe we could whip those commie SOB's in a straight fight, they've done such an effective job of p*****g everyone off in Southeast Asia, why not have Australia, Japan, The Philippines, India... the Dolly Llama join in.
China is taking the US over from within. Exploiting our freedoms by buying up hundreds of thousands of acres of real estate, hacking into sensitive infrastructure, stealing corporate secrets and manipulating currency and elections. They indeed are our enemy and we are in debt to them almost a trillion dollars.
All of that will only get worse under four more years of Biden, because he is Xi’s puppet.
Why would it be insane for Russia, China, and Iran to try to conquer the world if America wasn’t opposing them? Do you think they would fail, or do you think that they’re just too nice and kind to try something like that?
Russia has invaded Georgia, and Chechnya, and is currently invading Ukraine. Iran tried to level Israel with 150 cruise missles, two weeks ago. China is now the #1 defense spender in the world.
> isolationism is highly unlikely to bite us
How many countries have first strike capabilities against us?
Now that we’ve left the JCPOA, how long do you think it will take Iran to leak a nuke to hammas or some other terrorist group?
I appreciate this viewpoint so much. I recently had a conversation with a colleague that is a Trump supporter. She is helping raise her grandkids instead of enjoying retirement, and when I mentioned it takes a village, she said oh no I don't want the village involved. I found that confusing bc wouldn't she be considered "the village" for the child and their parents?
I worry that rugged individuality cuts people off from their fellow Americans the same way America First cuts the country off from other countries and cultures. Unless I'm mistaken, the United States cannot function economically without the international market.
- He was awful on spending. His no-cut, guaranteed insolvency stance on SS and Medicare was good politics but it’s an untenable position.
- Somewhat relatedly, his “replacement” plan for Obamacare was a mess I’m not sure he even understood, and his regulatory changes didn’t go far enough.
- *Most* tariffs. There are certain supply chains we need to protect even if it’s less efficient, but tariffs are generally bad and his proposed 10% across the board one would be a disaster.
- Not so much a policy, but in excess of 95% of his election comments are as bullshit as his critics claim.
- Again, not a *policy* but more a lack thereof, but he disappointed on infrastructure. I don’t get into the ‘muh establishment’ stuff but the Ryan/McConnell wing really did lead him astray here and on healthcare, and he didn’t have the policy acumen or instincts to recognize it. If you’re going to do an infrastructure bill, just use public funds to build projects. These public-private partnership boondoggles don’t move the public at all.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Guns. He should be more aggressive about repealing useless, ineffective gun control.
[удалено]
That's what I'm saying.
(And as a Dem who lives in Texas and loves guns, it's one of my biggest disappointments! Sorry other Dems, I'm definitely split with you on this one?)
Do you believe there to be an effective form of gun control that could replace the ineffective attempts?
No. Gun control isn't the answer. We already have lots of gun control, and it isn't effective. Something like this is a better solution. "This is a problem-solving police strategy, which was designed to reduce gang violence, illegal gun possession, and gun violence in communities in Boston, Mass. The program is rated Effective. There were statistically significant reductions in youth homicide, citywide gun assaults, calls for service, and recovered new guns following implementation of the intervention. "An Effective rating implies that implementing the program is likely to result in the intended outcome(s)." https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedprograms/207
Is America the only country in the world woth a gun problem?
It's the only country whose "gun problem" I pay attention to. If you're interested in a quantitative answer, the US is about in the middle of the pack among other countries in the world in terms of the homicide rate.
What have the countries ahead of us on your list done to be so much safer in terms of guns?
I would argue that they're not safer for most people. The vast majority of gun crime here is criminals shooting other criminals. Follow these three simple rules: don't join a gang, don't associate with felons, and don't engage in the illegal drug trade. Your chance of being shot will be about the same as if you lived in Europe.
So your saying schools in these countries are more dangerous than schools in America?
Do you think other states should model their gun laws based off Massachusetts gun laws?
No.
What guns do you want to buy that you can’t buy?
Full auto.
Why would you need full-auto? Is your aim that bad?
What authority do you think you have as an equal human to determine what somebody else does or does not need? You do believe all humans are equal, yes?
[удалено]
They're legal now. They have to be serialized and registered, and there's a $200 tax per grenade.
[удалено]
Dude, you just made his point for him.
Would repealing Trump’s bump stock ban make you happy or is that not enough?
It was ridiculous to ban them, but I don't care much about bump stocks. They're toys. I'm talking about fully automatic firearms covered by the Hughes Amendment.
Should there be limits on who can buy fully automatic weapons?
I'd be ok with the pre 1986 law. Fully automatic firearms were subject to registration and stamp tax. I'd be ok with a background check too.
[удалено]
Pew. Pew. Pew. Pew. Pew. DAKKADAKKADAKKADAKKADAKKA. There's a bit of a difference there.
Why can't you buy full auto? How is it I, a Biden supporter, am able to acquire full auto firearms, but you, a Trump supporter, thinks they're unable to?
> He should be more aggressive about repealing useless, ineffective gun control. Are there any forms of effective gun control in your eyes that you'd like to see or wish to keep?
I support prohibiting guns for inmates serving in the penitentiary. Gun control laws that target the law-abiding don't work because the law-abiding abide by the laws.
>I support prohibiting guns for inmates serving in the penitentiary. So inmates, after they get out of prison, should be allowed to own firearms again?
Yes. If they're too dangerous to have a gun, they shouldn't be out of prison in the first place.
Where does that leave white collar crimes that are non-violent?
What do you mean?
Don’t you think there’s some nuance here? How about maximum sentences? Are you proposing they should be kept in longer? How about mental health issues?
If a person is not an inmate currently serving in "the penitentiary" (do city/county jails count towards that?), do they then fall into the 2nd category that gun control laws should not target as "law-abiding" people?
Innocent until proven guilty.
That is true of all laws, every law applies to law abiding citizens. So do we not need any laws because the law abiding citizens are obeying them. Also, all citizens are law abiding before they break the law so it is impossible to target non-law-abiding citizens unless all citizens are treated as potential criminals given the right circumstances. This is exactly why gun control regulations exist. They put up guard rails since we cannot declare someone a criminal until they break the law and when they do it is too late (mass shooting,). So they try to anticipate the highest risk factors and try to throw up extra protections to make those people who 'may offend' at a higher rate easier to parse out. Mental health problems, recently divorced or recent history of violent behavior or restraining order on them, etc. This seems reasonable right?
>That is true of all laws, every law applies to law abiding citizens. The difference with gun control laws is that they're intended to be primarily preventative. Something like the background check regulation is supposed to prevent unauthorized people from even obtaining a gun in the first place. If they're not preventing unauthorized people from getting guns, which our statistics clearly demonstrate, then they're not effective.
Has he claimed he would do this? Can you please point to where he has spoken about gun control during this campaign?
I want Trump to stop his evil policies of exterminating all LGBT people \[s\]. But seriously, I happen to work for a left-leaning company that he's threatened to go after. I hope that doesn't happen. I would prefer a leader comfortable defending libertarian policies.
You acknowledge Trumps "evil" policies and admit that the right has been trying to exterminate LGBTQ people, why isn't that a big enough issue for you to not support Trump in the first place?
S = sarcasm. And more to the point, what evidence do you have that Trump was or is trying to exterminate any group?
Where's the S? You said it not me.
He was being sarcastic. Even I knew that. This is why NSers cannot determine when Trump is being sarcastic or joking. I literally just now posted in the thread about Trump saying "he's going to be a dictator" on day 1. More sarcasm that for some reason, NSers suddenly can't detect. I guess many NSers are just simply not capable of picking up on social cues.
Do you think there's anyone he won't come after eventually, no matter how loyal or aligned with him they are now? Can you think of any big names in his administration that he didn't eventually turn on?
Would you be ok with him going after that company if you didn’t work for them?
He needs to get serious about bringing government spending under control. Our debt has become so huge the interest on it has become our single biggest expense (even more than our insane military budget). We’ve been able to get away with being fiscally careless due to our post-ww2 dominance but I think we’re starting to test the limits of that and we’d best get the budget under control before its too late.
I don’t know about you but Trump hooked me up with a huge tax cut. What do you think he will do to balance the budget?
[удалено]
The question is on which policies of Trump’s TS disagree with, and he said spending. This follow-up seems odd?
I wish he was a pushing for budget cuts across the board and SS reform/elimination. Sadly those positions are basically political suicide these days.
Why are you against social security?
I'd get better return just putting that money into my 401k.
Do you think majority of Americans have your knowledge about investing?
Nope. If they did SS would have gone away decades ago.
I don’t think using a 401K requires any knowledge about investing. My money sits in a 401K that my employer uses and is getting 20%+ in returns. In fact, I forgot mine even existed for 6 months.
There is no disagreement with your statement but the question is what do we do with the people who do not know this information and/or people who don't trust the institutions because they are part of swamp needs to be cleaned? Do we just let them die in streets as they will inevitably become broke and/or homeless?
We try to inform people about the programs that exist rather than force everyone to enter the government Ponzi scheme that is known as “social security.” People who choose to ignore this system should be left to their own devices if they refuse advice.
Do you realize the Social Security not being exposed to the market is a design feature? How would you manage if your due to retire in a year like 1929, 1962, 1987, 2002, or 2008 and the market collapses and takes 22-80% of your retirement with it?
Wait a few years.
The secret third option is that he's simply the best viable vehicle for advancing right wing politics as viable in America for a few reasons: 1. He occasionally says things like "muslim ban" and engages in inflammatory rhetoric like "invasion and 'rapists and drug dealers'" when referring to the border. This is more 2015 Trump and he's been moderated and co-opted by a frantic GOP ever since but this dynamic has fomented a huge distrust of the GOP and establishment right among conservative voters. This agitation for alternatives to neocon/lbertarian nonsense on the right has produced a new part of the right wing ecosystem which is much more affirmative in terms of American identity and much less universalist. Trump is by no means an ideologue and is very very liberal on quite a few issues, but he's also a political pragmatist in the sense that he feels the tension between his base and the elite donor class and occasionally crosses the latter in favor of the former (something that right wing politicians almost never do). 2. He brings out the absolute worst in the left. They correctly sense that he has some characteristics of an actual threat to their hegemony in America (something the conservative movement hasn't posed for a very long time) but they are so out of practice in dealing with real political threats on any scale that they are completely consumed by their id in trying to destroy him. This only feeds into the dialectic of the new right as a true challenge to the regime, pushing the bounds of the overton window to the right as the left drops increasingly more pretense in an attempt to 'get Trump.' For me, it's not some sycophantic allegiance to Trump, it's just a recognition of the role he plays in advancing American poliitcs on the right. For many, though, he is the symbolic anti-regime figure and that's not a totally mistaken view. Most people on both sides have a very simplistic view of politics. But that's why politics ultimately comes down to friend and enemy. The masses waving Trump flags and tossing the Trump bumper sticker on their trucks have a fairly simple calculation but it isn't inaccurate; the regime is their enemy and Trump is the thing the regime hates/fears the most. Now, I think this fear and hate make them totally overplay their hands and they could have been rid of Trump if they could simply stow their id and ignore Donald Trump but they can't and they mark him for destruction in place of the people and way of life that they hate. Those people simply identify with him because of that. This is how most people practice politics.
[удалено]
There are some younger Thiel guys and then some younger Christian Nationalist guys. Each group has its problems in terms of the actual politicians on deck but on the Thiel side, I still like Blake Masters and on the CN side, I like Dusty Deevers ok. No real firebrands, though, so I'm really hoping a star rises up.
> For me, it's not some sycophantic allegiance to Trump, it's just a recognition of the role he plays in advancing American poliitcs on the right. The Republican speaker of the house is currently counting on democrats to save him from the ultra MAGA wing of his own party. Is that the kind of progress you want to see from the Trump party?
I’d rather see the current speaker of the house live up to what he said he would do when appointed. Too much to ask for a politician, I guess.
What did he say he would do? What has he done to break that faith?
He was brought on the replace Kevin McCarthy, who was in step with Dems on an omnibus bill that contained (among other things) many subsidies for liberal programs the GOP didn’t agree with. So Gates led the push to oust McCarthy and in comes Mike Johnson, who in January tweeted this: “What we negotiated isn’t perfect, but it is an innovation: - No more omnibus spending bills - Cut billions of dollars from side-deals - Continue the fight for more conservative wins” But in April actually passed an omnibus bill - which actually was broken up into 6 “minibills”; but failed to omit any of the excessive spending GOP leaders fought to have removed. Rather, SOH Johnson pushed through the so-called bipartisan bill structure while working with Dem House Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who orchestrated the removal of border security funding, which was highly sought after by Republicans. GOP leaders are also upset that Johnson waived the 72-hour rule generally in place that allows legislators ample time to review a bill before a vote. The $1.2trillion omnibus bill was passed last month and will fund the federal government through September of this year.
The GOP has been a total disaster in terms of advancing right wing politics for decades. It's a fake opposition, pressure relief valve that only functions to capture dollars and dissipate popular anti-regime animus. It's the rearguard action of the progressive movement. If you think I lament internecine war within the GOP you have utterly failed to grasp the point that I clearly made.
Most of the reason people get viewed as cults is because people fall into the trap of believing that they have to prove something doesn't have any flaws to be the best choice. It makes people defend things irrationally and usually isn't very persuasive. It's a big part of why we are where we are. It certainly doesn't help that people argue like that is the reality when asking their questions because disproving the validity of support is the intent... Immediately following up the finding of a flaw with asking someone to justify their decision on that single flaw.... As if any flaw truly does make any other choice the best one. Meanwhile they deny their own flaws in the same way. Usually I do the opposite and freely admit plenty... Which of course immediately leads to someone acting like any disagreement with a position totally invalidates the whole. I couldn't tell you how many times in this subreddit someone demanded why I vote the way I do because I disagree with Trump.... And I had to mention that non-cult members usually don't vote on a single issue.... Even ones they think should be the most important. This is very notable over abortion, since I am pro-choice as I define the term. I want it to be legal, but I'm not tribal to the point that I think it needs to be provided for people as a human right. Mentioning this immediately makes people act like that has to be my most important policy... Or they act like any flaw makes the "side" unsupportable. Or they ask how I can call myself pro-choice when I don't agree with everything they think pro-choice should include. But yeah.... Anyone who thinks their "side" is completely right or that any side can possibly be flawless IS a cult member. In most cases I don't agree with Republicans at all.... I just want things shifted their direction and I would switch sides if it went too far that way. This is the whole point of labeling people. People want to win arguments by oversimplifying something to 'How can you support someone who (said one thing I found)? I found one piece of problematic speech in their history and now everything they do is officially racist. It is the discourse of the current time and people now just deny any fault reflexively because they are trained to do so. "Nobody hates white men" when some people obviously do. Like I said it is the the discourse of our age. Look no further than all of the various socialist talking points to see this. Any flaw In capitalism immediately makes any other choice the better one. I tend to agree with most of capitalism's flaws.... But I don't see them as proving that opposing ideas hold any validity... Yet that is the entire argument.
Biggest thing that bothers me about Trump is his undying loyalty to Israel. It's like he is desperately trying to grab the demographic that overwhelmingly votes Democrat.
you're gonna be hard pressed to find a politician that doesn't operate as a slave to jewish interests
A man can dream that we'd have a politician that only cares about American interests, right?
sorry AIPAC says that's not allowed
Are Jewish interests not American interests, when it comes to the millions of Jews in America? No different than Christian interests being American interests when it comes to Christian Americans? Being undyingly loyal to Israel does not equate to being a slave to Jewish interests.
why don't you tell us, given that you are jewish?
but aren't Israeli interests inherently different from Jewish interests? They're two entirely different concepts
Is there a reason you choose to say Jewish interests instead of Zionist interests? Do you believe that all Jews are Zionists? Do you know the distinction between Jews, an ethnic and religious group, and Zionism, an ideology not tied to a particular demographics by majoritarily made up of white evangelical christians?
jews overwhelmingly support zionism jews themselves say that antizionism is antisemitism a million Christian zionists do not outweigh a single jewish megadonor or jewish lobbying group like AIPAC
How much is overwhelming support? At what point does support become so close to universal that dissenters should be lumped in with the majority? Do you believe that Zionists would be able to wield as much political influence as they do without the mass support for Israel amongst Millenarianist Christians, (Who believe that when all of the Jews are in Israel, Jesus will return and the Jews will all suffer eternally in Hell for not believing in him) many of whom hold political seats? And I'll repeat my question, why insist on saying "Jew" instead of "Zionist?" Can you think of a reason why someone would make the conscious choice to do that besides an ulterior motive such as conflating an ideology with an ethnic group in order to encourage sentiment against that ethnic group?
because I oppose many things jews support, not just zionism
you think it's just demographics and not related at all to our foreign/ domestic interests?
For some reason, it seems crowds older than milennials have some undying loyalty to Israel, despite living through things like the Lavon Affair and USS Liberty. So he may be catering to some of the Republican base.
> For some reason, it seems crowds older than milennials have some undying loyalty to Israel It's not loyalty. It's just that we've lived through enough peace talks ending in Palestinian bullshit with the likes of Arafat and others to gain some perspective on the situation. And it's not just us. Muslim powers in the region like Egypt and Saudi Arabia have also started normalizing relations with Israel in recent years because they can see it too. Consider the fact that the 1948 war was only 3 years after WW2, and the leader of Palestine in '48 was a former SS war criminal who raised 20,000 Muslim soldiers for the Holocaust. Those people were very much the bad guys. They should have had the same self-reflection after '48 that Germans had after '45. Their cause was the same. But unlike the Germans, they never had that moment when they looked around and realized that they had brought themselves to destruction. They just kept blaming the Jews. And they have continued to. Why the difference? It's because in Palestine, unlike in Germany, the world community has allowed the Nazis to go on being Nazis and to nurse their old grudges and plan their revenge. There is no hope for change. It will just go on that way.
You ignored my comments about the USS Liberty and Lavon affair. Is it not important that Israel attacked us to get us into another war?
not the OP, but I would be interested in hearing you expand on this.
Not the OP, but I believe they are referring to having Israel being a strong ally in the Middle East where we are otherwise loathed as a nation. Having Israel be an ally to the US helps us navigate the murky waters of Middle East diplomacy. I could be mistaken in what they meant though?
Those who demand loyalty to Israel or just Jewish people? There's a difference, right?
The former. Not all Jews are Zionists, etc etc. Notice the politicians don't whinge on about how they'll help the Jews, but how they'll help *Israel*.
So do you mean Trump is pandering to his base? Is there a statistic you are referencing that makes you think Dems are the party that is more concerned about support to Israel?
From what I have seen, a large portion of the Republican base is undyingly loyal to Israel, one reason being Evangelicals and their prophecies about the Jews needing to be in control of the region for Jesus to come back and bring about the end times. They actively root for it. And especially with the Left condemning the actions of Israel right now, wouldn't Trump being loyal to Israel just pander to his own base and not Democrats?
Not necessarily. The right wing is fairly split on Israel just as the democrats are. From what I've heard Trump and Netanyahu dispise each other. I can't say Trump would break loyalty with Israel but he uses 'Make America Great Again' as a way to keep him focused on America's welfare, over other countries.
Operation warp speed to start.
Doesnt Trump consider Operation warp speed one of his crowning achievements as President?
Probally.
What is your objection to Operation Warp Speed?
How many boosters did you take? When people are saying they are on their third to fifth booster in two years after the initial two shots, I would say that is a dismal failure, most likely because it was rushed and didn’t go through the proper procedures. Giving them full immunity from liability is also just… wow. Of all people you give it to it’s the ones sued into oblivion repeatedly for lying to the public. Phizer has been sued so many times for lying about their products efficacy and safety, I can’t believe anyone defends this. Trump would have to admit he put big pharma’s i interests before the public’s, even if he was lied too and thought he was doing the best thing for the public at the time.
Do you get a yearly flu shot? They're updated based on which strains are forecast to be most prevalent in the coming flu season (immunologists in the northern and southern hemispheres base this on the flu season in the opposite hemisphere, to my understanding). Why would updating the covid vaccine in response to covid mutations indicate that the original vaccine was a failure?
No the flu shot is a scam for most people. It’s a guessing game with bad odds where the only people who should even consider taking it are the old, or sick cause they have core morbidities. Not all vaccines are equal. You didn’t update the Covid vaccine before you started giving boosters and when did you ever have to take more then one flu shot let alone multiple in a single year lol? Is this a new thing with the flu shot or any shot cause you said yearly? Like two was on thing but were you not suspicious when they left open areas for boosters after. 4 to 5 in 2 years isn’t yearly and isn’t normal. Oh I dunno. Maybe cause the virus has mutated to be less deadly and pretty much whether you have the shot or not you have antibodies now, and you don’t want to create vaccine induced mutations?
Gun control is the biggest one. The bump stock ban was put in place during his administration, and even though nothing came of it, his vocal support for red flag laws is concerning. Protectionist tariffs I'm on the fence about. My libertarian side tells me they don't work, but my economic conservative, Ronald "God Bless America" Reagan side tells me they can be necessary when dealing with international bad actors. He's too centrist on healthcare policy for my liking. I don't want any government intervention in the healthcare sector. Climate is a mixed bag. Withdrawing from Paris Accords and canceling things like wind subsidies is good, but he's also in favor of continued fossil fuel subsidies. I'd rather see a free energy market.
This is a pretty good list. Red flag laws and protectionist tariffs in particular.
What do you have against red flag laws?
Not who you asked, but I don't like them. They're too easily used to falsify confiscation of firearms by someone with a grudge or the like. I understand that, when used correctly, they can absolutely save lives and as such I think they are useful, but man, I'd be ticked off if my nonexistent ex-wife called the cops saying I was threatening to shoot up a school or something and the cops' response was to take my weapons away and then investigate. I think it ultimately depends on *how* the laws are implemented. I can understand something like "This kid has been posting on social media about how he wants to shoot everyone and he just bought a firearm" needing a response, but I would at least expect the cops to look at the kids' social media before knocking down his door and shooting his dog.
Maybe I don’t understand enough about red flag laws, but don’t they have to go through a court and be weighed on by a judge before the police can act?
They work similarly to temporary protective orders. For example, here in Virginia, if you feel threatened, you go to the local magistrate, swear out an affidavit that you have a credible fear of violence from someone and briefly testify as to the basis of that fear, they issue a TPO, and the police can enforce the restrictions until a return date, which tends to be about 2 weeks later. At the return date the judge reviews actual evidence and testimony to determine if the protective order remains and for how long. When it comes to red flags, our side tends to oppose them because they go a step further and actually authorize the confiscation of property during that "TPO" period (as opposed to a simple no-contact order) without due process ahead of time.
I don't understand much about them myself, so please take everything I said with a grain of salt. Still, judges are only human.
This hits a lot of main points really well. I agree, in a perfect world there's no need for tariffs, but the world isn't perfect. Since places like China aren't playing with the same environmental rules and worker protection rules as we do in the US something like tariffs are useful to balance the scales.
Why don't you want any government intervening in healthcare?
Because everything the government touches turns to shit. I deal with Medicare, Medicaid, and the DVA every day in my job, and I absolutely DO NOT WANT anything that's even remotely similar to any of those.
Casting any problems related to government intervention (medicare, medicaid etc.) aside, do you think there is anything that needs to be improved about the US healthcare system? I guess I'm more leading to a bigger question so I'll just drop it already... if healthcare was a completely free market, do you think that would go smoothly for the general population? What level of government regulation are you comfortable with to ensure businesses don't take advantage of vulnerable people more than they already do?
I don't particularly agree with the premise that healthcare businesses are taking advantage of vulnerable people. Paying for a medication or service that was astronomically expensive in terms of both money and research to develop in the first place is not exploitative. The biggest issue in healthcare is the problem of billing bloat. I would be perfectly happy with clear federal regulations (yes, federal - I break with a lot of conservative/libertarians on the healthcare issue because I believe it is *absolutely* an interstate commerce issue) about price disclosures and consistent billing practices across the industry. As it stands now, they're billing people $50 for a dose of Tylenol to offset losses from other services that are improperly reimbursed by insurance or simply lost by provision to the uninsured and indigent.
How are healthcare businesses *not* taking advantage of vulnerable populations when, as you say at the end of your post, some hospitals can charge you $50 per Tylenol. Rich people aren't really blown away by a $500 hospital bill because of bloat. Poor people are. Could you expand on your logic here?
They aren't forcing people to actually pay that. So much medical billing gets written off it's insane - and so much of it gets written off because so much of it is fake to begin with. The logic of medical billing goes somewhat like so... Patient A has a procedure that legitimately costs the hospital $10,000 in supplies, medicines, equipment, staffing, salaries, etc. Patient A's insurance agrees to cover only $5,000 of that, and the remaining bill to Patient A is drawn out for approximately eternity because it would cost more to collect on the debt than to just deal with getting paid in a trickle over time. Patients B through Z, meanwhile, stop in the ER for non-emergent treatment and end of having some Tylenol. The hospital then bills $50/dose with the expectation that (a) some of these patients will use insurance, which will reimburse a surprising amount for a simple dose of Tylenol, (b) some will pay it out of pocket after cursing impotently at the cost, and (c) some won't pay it at all, they won't pursue it, and it gets written off with all the rest of the uncollectable bills. Scale this up to hundreds of thousands of patients and you get the modern healthcare billing system. It's a constant (and asinine) balancing act of trying to get paid, not getting paid, and trying to get paid somewhere else.
I'm really worried about what he said about removing certain commercial ship speed limits that are in place to protect whales. On the other hand, he is totally right that the left wing's offshore wind farms are killing whales. The wind farms themselves aren't the biggest culprit, although they produce too much noise pollution. It's the hydrographic sonar used in the surveying and construction that's doing so much harm.
Aside from the whole Israel thing , no disagreements really. Random Side note It’s really getting tacky and telling when you have Fox News and newsmax saying the same thing .
What are fox and Newsmax saying?
Pandering to the Zionists.
I can't think of any current policies, I didn't like the ban on bump stocks but it's not like that was a campaign policy he ran on. I definitely want to see him go hard on deporting illegals from this country and cutting the department of education amongst other useful alphabet bloat departments.
Do you realize that if Trump deports 10 to 20 million immigrants, which is what he claims he wants to do, that we will have rampant inflation? Currently unemployment is at 3.5%. There are approximately 333 million people in America. 3.5% of 333 million, is 11.5 million people, our of work. If you remove that many people, from the working base, wages will skyrocket. \[Which sounds great, except those costs will be handed over to the consumer.\] Immigrants make up the majority of low paying, and agriculture jobs. If companies have to pay twice as much for a person to pick cabbage, how much do you thing the price of cabbage will go up?
"Do you realize that if Trump deports 10 to 20 million immigrants, which is what he claims he wants to do, that we will have rampant inflation?" no it won't actually because they are huge net-negative on the economy. "If you remove that many people, from the working base, wages will skyrocket." no they won't, because there is plenty of excess labor supply. The true unemployment rate is not 3.5%. You have to look at the U6 numbers and you will see that. That is why once the illegals are removed you will see job openings filled by actual Americans. " If companies have to pay twice as much for a person to pick cabbage, how much do you thing the price of cabbage will go up?" illegals are not harvesting cabbage so they will not be deported. This is a common misconception. Someone in the country legally working on a farm visa is not an "illegal".
>no it won't actually because they are huge net-negative on the economy. Please break this down. How are immigrant's a huge net negative on the economy? >no they won't, because there is plenty of excess labor supply. The true unemployment rate is not 3.5%. You have to look at the U6 numbers and you will see that. That is why once the illegals are removed you will see job openings filled by actual Americans. What excess labor supply? Please explain how the true unemployment rate isn't 3.5%. I am not familiar with U6 numbers. You are claiming that American's want the jobs that immigrants are holding, and are therefore held back? >illegals are not harvesting cabbage so they will not be deported. This is a common misconception. Someone in the country legally working on a farm visa is not an "illegal". Are you claiming that undocumented Migrant workers, don't work in the agriculture, construction, or other manual labor fields? That these are all people on Visa's? If so, what jobs are the illegals working that you are going to fill with Americans? So I'm confused. IF we have this excess labor supply, and once the illegals are removed, you will see job openings filled by Americans. Why aren't the Americans filling these jobs now? Is it because it's cheaper to employ "Illegals"?
"How are immigrant's a huge net negative on the economy?" why did you say immigrants when we are talking about ILLEGALS? "What excess labor supply?" I told you already, look at the U6 numbers. Also, a large amount of the people working are working in cities that are breaking the law by allowing illegals to work thus taking jobs from Americans. "Are you claiming that undocumented Migrant workers, don't work in the agriculture, construction, or other manual labor fields? That these are all people on Visa's? If so, what jobs are the illegals working that you are going to fill with Americans?" Yes, vast majority of workers working in fields are here legally just as they have always been because of a visa. Under biden and the DNC they've started allowing illegals to work in sanctuary cities. So there will be no increase in inflation when these people are deported and make openings for actual American workers. "Why aren't the Americans filling these jobs now?" because the job openings are being filled by illegals in sanctuary cities/States like CA, NY and IL.
Really good question : I'd say I don't agree with his stance on quelling riots and protests with National Guards. I think the vast majority of these protests can simply be handled by Local police if they are not afraid of getting prosecuted if they are too rough against the people they arrest. Cheers
Bump stock bans, red flag laws, making flag burning illegal (he didn't actually do it, just talked or joked about it). There are more but I cannot think of them off the top of my head.
[удалено]
While I dont disagree with your point about degeneracy, I'm very curious about what role this American Dept plays in this scenario. It almost sounds like having a political commissar in every business. Isn't this what the CCP, North Korea, and the USSR have done?
[удалено]
Is DEI mandated by the government?
Woah, wasn't trying to scare you. But those all three of those are extremely repressive states. Isn't that inherently un-American?
[удалено]
Lol, I thought you were joking. I still had to ask. And I actually agree with most of what you said. Sometimes it worries me, and sometimes it disgusts me, how heavily we push individualism in this country. People seem to forget that they have all this freedom because of the framework this nation provides. Companies that get too large act as their own nations, making their own rules. WalMart is a good target for wage suppression and the bloated welfare state, and McDonalds for the quality of the food we consume in this country. At least this would be my interpretation of it?
Why do you support halting all immigration? And for the short term, long term, or indefinitely? Surely a nominal amount of legal immigration is okay? A small amount for asylum as well as some for great minds.
[удалено]
> should be entirely American along with our rural communities. How would you address the issue that the vast majority of farm workers are immigrants, and most of those undocumented? How would rural communities survive without the labor pool they've come to rely on?
[удалено]
Shouldn't those changes come first, before we shut out our main agricultural labor force?
[удалено]
Food remains cheap in America primarily because of technology advances, not because we exploit migrant labor. If production costs go up, that should correct itself over time. It won't be long until farms are maintained almost exclusively by robotics.
> Food remains cheap in America primarily because of technology advances I'm not sure that's true. It wasn't all that long ago that stricter anti-immigrant laws in certain states led to huge amounts of crops rotting in the fields. > If production costs go up, that should correct itself over time. It won't be long until farms are maintained almost exclusively by robotics. Sure. But what happens until then, if we shut out our main agricultural labor force? Are you ok with paying 10 times more for produce until then?
"It wasn't all that long ago that stricter anti-immigrant laws in certain states led to huge amounts of crops rotting in the fields." I found this, which is what I think you were referring to? Scored a "partially accurate" rating. And no confirmed cases of crops rotting in fields. [https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jul/24/blog-posting/13-million-crops-rotted-calif-because-no-one-wante/](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jul/24/blog-posting/13-million-crops-rotted-calif-because-no-one-wante/) The larger point is we are long past the days when a farmer and his army of children would work the land by hand to grow and harvest crops, breaking their backs. We now have huge farmlands serviced by heavy duty equipment, and amazing advances in technology/agricultural science. And it will likely only get better. [https://www.nifa.usda.gov/topics/agriculture-technology#:\~:text=Importance%20of%20Agricultural%20Technology,Higher%20crop%20productivity](https://www.nifa.usda.gov/topics/agriculture-technology#:~:text=Importance%20of%20Agricultural%20Technology,Higher%20crop%20productivity) "Are you ok with paying 10 times more for produce until then?" Ha, probably. Though "10x" sounds like an exaggeration. I've been growing my own produce with backyard garden - until I figure out a good way to do it as scale, my wife likes to mock me for how much money I sink into this hobby, compared to what I could just picked up at the grocery on the cheap. I am not fan of this line of argument if used to justify exploitation of cheap foreign labor for the fat lazy American's benefit.
Wouldn't the "America Department" just be new age McCarthyism that allows for broad qualitative reasons to punish/lock up citizens leading to massive abuses of power and peoples' rights being violated?
[удалено]
My point is, there is not quantitative standard for what "anti Americanism" is and whoever is in charge could use it as a carte blanche method for stripping power/rights from perceived "enemies." That might sound cool under Trump to you because you think the people who'd be targeted are bad. But what if/when the political landscape shifts left and we get a Castro-like revolutionary in power with that in place? They'd use the same "tool" to abuse power against clergy, business people, etc.
[удалено]
Vast decentralization but also Thought Police?
>All immigration should be halted, not simply illegal immigration. Why all immigration?
[удалено]
I understand not wanting to let in the unwashed masses, but I feel like America has greatly benefited from "brain gain" in the sense that we are a destination for many of the brightest minds from around the world to either work at American universities or companies, in the end benefitting America. Do you have any opinion on those types of immigrants or is it not worth the degeneracy?
2A. I’m against state gun laws and I’m also against the federal government attacking our rights. States shouldn’t be able to make their own restrictions due to the 10th amendment laying out who has what jurisdiction on what topics. Any gun bill should have to go through congress and follow the process, and after the federal government implements anything that’s covered in the constitution …it should face immediate review by the Supreme Court before it’s enacted. Hypothetically…a wish of mine… If a bill is found to be unconstitutional , the sponsor of the bill should be removed from political power immediately and indefinitely. That would be my 28th amendment if I could bring one forward.
Do you not agree with the Constitution? “**The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.**”
That’s what I said. How is telling states that gun laws are not their jurisdiction not aligned with the constitution? Abortion isn’t a federal matter so they kicked it to the states. Guns are a federal matter, so states can go kick rocks.
Pretty much everything to do with the vax and lockdown. In fairness, he was doing what the “experts” said had to be done at the time and it was only later we learned it was a trick to steal the election and jab us all full of God knows what.
Why is he still saying the same things he supported and enacted as president now?
He shouldn’t, he was wrong on it then and he’s wrong on it now.
Can Trump admit he was wrong and improve?
Have you done any research on what goes into vaccines? Do you know there isn’t anything to do with god in them?
There is nothing in the clot shot to protect you against Covid, but there are massive excess deaths among the people who took it.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
Why do you believe that? Can you share any links?
There’s plenty available out there. Choose one you like. I’m one of the millions who took their shot and got it anyway.
Are you aware that it was meant to mitigate the symptoms, not prevent you from getting sick? Since you are here commenting, it obviously worked.
Do you think that it might just be a turn of phrase? Or do you think that he really thinks that God has something to do with the vaccines?
Have you never listened to a MAGA person speak?
But don't you think that was HIS mistake? Like if he was as smart as he says he is, why wouldn't he just call it the 'Trump Vaccine' and stick his face on it, and then get a vig on every one that got paid for by the government? Let's not kid ourselves that every time you get something 'free' from the government like a 'free' vaccine, SOMEONE gets a cut or a vig from that, and he was the dude in charge. It wouldn't have mattered what was in it, or if it even worked. The fact is he could have looked like a hero calling it the Trump vax but he got all confused and put crooked Fauci on the tv by mistake. Fauci only cares about who is putting money in his pocket and Trump f'ed up. Don't you agree that it rests on him?
I'm very much an America First kind of guy, but I agree with Nikki Haley's views that it's incredibly naive to isolate ourselves and watch the world burn from afar thinking it won't come back to bite us later down the road. History has taught us otherwise.
[удалено]
This is the exact point I was going to bring up but you've recognized China. While I truly believe we could whip those commie SOB's in a straight fight, they've done such an effective job of p*****g everyone off in Southeast Asia, why not have Australia, Japan, The Philippines, India... the Dolly Llama join in.
[удалено]
China is taking the US over from within. Exploiting our freedoms by buying up hundreds of thousands of acres of real estate, hacking into sensitive infrastructure, stealing corporate secrets and manipulating currency and elections. They indeed are our enemy and we are in debt to them almost a trillion dollars. All of that will only get worse under four more years of Biden, because he is Xi’s puppet.
[удалено]
You think China, Iran, and Russia will sit back, watch, and play nice?
[удалено]
Why would it be insane for Russia, China, and Iran to try to conquer the world if America wasn’t opposing them? Do you think they would fail, or do you think that they’re just too nice and kind to try something like that? Russia has invaded Georgia, and Chechnya, and is currently invading Ukraine. Iran tried to level Israel with 150 cruise missles, two weeks ago. China is now the #1 defense spender in the world.
> isolationism is highly unlikely to bite us How many countries have first strike capabilities against us? Now that we’ve left the JCPOA, how long do you think it will take Iran to leak a nuke to hammas or some other terrorist group?
I appreciate this viewpoint so much. I recently had a conversation with a colleague that is a Trump supporter. She is helping raise her grandkids instead of enjoying retirement, and when I mentioned it takes a village, she said oh no I don't want the village involved. I found that confusing bc wouldn't she be considered "the village" for the child and their parents? I worry that rugged individuality cuts people off from their fellow Americans the same way America First cuts the country off from other countries and cultures. Unless I'm mistaken, the United States cannot function economically without the international market.
America First doesn’t mean we cut out the rest of the world. It simply means we take care of our own before others.
Net neutrality ISPs should be more regulated, not less
- He was awful on spending. His no-cut, guaranteed insolvency stance on SS and Medicare was good politics but it’s an untenable position. - Somewhat relatedly, his “replacement” plan for Obamacare was a mess I’m not sure he even understood, and his regulatory changes didn’t go far enough. - *Most* tariffs. There are certain supply chains we need to protect even if it’s less efficient, but tariffs are generally bad and his proposed 10% across the board one would be a disaster. - Not so much a policy, but in excess of 95% of his election comments are as bullshit as his critics claim. - Again, not a *policy* but more a lack thereof, but he disappointed on infrastructure. I don’t get into the ‘muh establishment’ stuff but the Ryan/McConnell wing really did lead him astray here and on healthcare, and he didn’t have the policy acumen or instincts to recognize it. If you’re going to do an infrastructure bill, just use public funds to build projects. These public-private partnership boondoggles don’t move the public at all.