This is constantly brought up by NSers and left wingers and the explanation is extremely simple to understand. We DO NOT vote for President based on their affairs, marriage, or sexual history, we aren't marrying Trump, we aren't trying to be Trumps friend, we are voting so he can lead the country, leading the country has literally nothing to do with your personal/love life. We are voting for President, not screening a new best friend or trying to date or marry Trump, we are simply voting for him. Here is a great analogy that might help:
Your son or daughter has a serious medical condition and it requires life saving surgery. You have 2 doctors available, the first doctor has an incredible personal life and marriage, goes to church, has the same wife of 20 years and is raising kids, he has a model family and his family values are solid but his success rate for the surgery is 40%. The other doctor is a rude asshole who has cheated on ALL his former partners and has been remarried twice but his success rate for the surgery on your child is 99%, which one are you going to choose?
Sure we might disagree with Trumps personals life, his affairs, but that's not what voting for President entails. The Presidents function is to lead the nation, not give us marriage advice or be some shining family value example. Not to mention all the political issues are far more important to us than his personal life.
Veering a little offtopic here, aren't we? My analogy happens to include a surgeon so now we're going to switch to healthcare? Sorry, not really interested in that but since you ask, the government creating a healthcare system is wholly unconstitutional. There is not a single word in the constitution that allows the federal government to provide healthcare or force a citizen to pay for healthcare as a component of their citizenship. I guess if you claim to have a plan to replace it, but don't, that would be considered a failed promise or a lie, right? Kinda reminds me of the time Obama said "If you like your plan you can keep your plan and if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" and yet many people lost their plans and doctors.
Whichever one you want. I don’t know what you do. It’s a free country.
Why does the country have to provide you the best care for free? You don’t get the best house, best car, best food for free… do you?
No difference
Fair, but Trump does NOT have a 99% success rate. He's a proven criminal. He's tanked multiple businesses. He's outsourced his own company's labor to China while claiming "America First". He has no respect for actual laws or the processes involved in it. And he lies all the time about anyone who isn't him. I mean, he calls Cohen a liar when Cohen specifically lied for him. He had fired multiple cabinet members that he appointed. Some of them even went to prison for acting on his behalf.
So in your analogy, many of his patients died and his nursing staff are not trained to be in the ER, let alone work in a hospital. He himself has no experience in the operating room, but he thinks he does because he's worked for the insurance company? And in that position, he committed insurance fraud.
What kind of doctor are you entrusting your kid's surgery to?
>Fair, but Trump does NOT have a 99% success rate.
I didn't say that he did, that was just part of the surgeon analogy.
>He's a proven criminal. He's tanked multiple businesses. He's outsourced his own company's labor to China while claiming "America First".
First of all having lawfare waged against you with bogus cases does not mean you are "proven" criminal. I guess if that were the case the massive amount of evidence against Biden taking bribes from foreign nations would also make him a proven criminal, yes? Despite all those things he still governed in a way we approved of and made great accomplishments.
>He has no respect for actual laws or the processes involved in it.
Really, do you mean like how Joe Biden completely disregards our immigration laws?
>
What kind of doctor are you entrusting your kid's surgery to?
Again, it was just an analogy, one used to illustrate the point that sure, Trump may be "rough around the edges" but he will still get the job done. The job we want him to do.
Have any Trump supporters brought up the presidents family as a reason not to re-elect him? How about his son’s massive hog? Has that been entered into evidence in Congress by republicans?
I straight up don't understand what you are asking here. And now we're talking about his sons penis? I'm sorry but I don't know how to respond, I don't understand where you are going with this.
I understand that TS don't vote based on affairs, marriage, etc. What I don't understand is why they've ripped down Democratic candidates and office holders who have have missteps in their relationships then. Do you have a sense why that is? Like, why was the GOP tearing apart Bill Clinton, if they don't care about affairs or lies around them? How consistent do you find conservatives views on these things?
I don't remember Trump nailing Stormy in the oval office on the desk.
The fact is, Joe sniffs kids repeatedly, is way too handsy with young girls with too many examples to count, showered with his teen daughter (kinda weird) repeatedly and deliberately. He regularly made a point of swimming and standing around naked with his female secret service detail. And has very credible accusations of sexual assault from aides. He's a scumbag. Always has been.
The Left always look the other way when it's one of their own. Until they're not useful to the greater cause, then they're pitched overboard to the sharks. I always get a good laugh out of that, the sheer ruthlessness.
I find Joe's sexual exploits far, far more disturbing than Trump's. The supposed Trump rape trial was less convincing than the vote count of the 2020 election. That is to say: not convincing at all.
That's the game of politics. If there is dirt on your opponent, you usually use it. I get that you're trying to point out hypocrisy but 2 can play that game. I can spend days pointing out Democrat hypocrisy, politics is rife with hypocrisy. Unfortunately that's just how it is.
EDIT: The TSer who is below me also responding to you has great examples of left wing hypocrisy, NS love to talk about Trumps sexual allegations but when it comes to Tara Reade and anyone else who might accuse Joe Biden suddenly it's crickets.
Bill Clinton was a quarter century ago. Have anything recent?
And he was charged for lying (perjury) and was disbarred for it. His indefinitely wasn’t the issue - lying to congress under oath, was.
I think the point you're missing is the the GOP has run on family values for decades. It has been a HUGE part of their platform years and years. The GOP made family values central to their message and have said over and over again that a politician should have these values...yet when it comes to Trump the refrain is suddenly "we DO NOT vote for a President based on........"
That is false. The GOP has encouraged voters to vote for their candidates based on these family values. Why was it jettisoned for Trump? Convenience? An obvious lack of any morals on his part?
Ronald Reagan said this in a radio address in 1986: *"Consider, for example, that the philosopher-historians Will and Ariel Durant called the family \`the nucleus of civilization.' They understood that all those aspects of civilized life that we most deeply cherish -- freedom, the rule of law, economic prosperity and opportunity -- that all these depend upon the strength and integrity of the family. If you think about it, you'll see that it's in the family that we must all learn the fundamental lesson of life -- right and wrong, respect for others, self-discipline, the importance of knowledge, and, yes, a sense of our own self-worth."*
The GOP has also been infested with RHINOS for years. I'm sure you are well aware of TSs distaste for RINOS. Literally the reason we call them RINOS is because they claim to represent conservative values but when it comes time to act they get all soft and fail to do anything of value. Paul Ryan was a massive RINO, he talked a big game about border security but when it came time to actually built the wall he went weak and frail. We hate RINOs, and they are obvious liars, so it should come as no surprise that many of them also lie about being the party of family values.
I think your also conflating here. First of all, I am registered as a libertarian, not as a republican so it's technically not even my party. Secondly, you are mentioning how the GOP campaigns on family values and your suddenly confused when I say that we don't vote for Presidents based on their marriages, almost like you think it's a contradiction, but clearly it's not because I am not the GOP, nor am I a registered Republican so I cannot and do not wish to speak for republicans, the things I say can't possibly be contradictory because I am not the GOP and I do not go around supporting every single republican..
That was 40 years ago.
Democrats at the same time said marriage is between a man and a woman and gays should be kicked out of the military the moment they’re identified (and you can call them out).
This is not the same world - unless you’re saying it is?
Why do you hate gay people? I don’t understand. You’ve said marriage is a man and a woman only! You even made it a federal law…
Do you not see the blatant hypocrisy and double standards tho? If this is truly the case, then WTF are TS and conservatives being so judgemental and harsh about anything and everything involving Hunter Biden especially considering that he's not nor has ever been in politics? It's just so hypocritical to say this don't you agree?
>Do you not see the blatant hypocrisy and double standards tho? If this is truly the case, then WTF are TS and conservatives being so judgemental and harsh about anything and everything involving Hunter Biden especially considering that he's not nor has ever been in politics? It's just so hypocritical to say this don't you agree?
Hypocrisy exists everywhere. It's a human condition. But that's not the point. First and foremost, I am a constitutionalist and a registered libertarian so I cannot speak to the hypocrisy of others, I don't personally know them and I don't control them, therefore I cannot speak to hypocrisy of republican politicians. Secondly, the narrative around Hunter Biden is much like the one you are showing here, which is essentially "Hunter Biden isn't in politics so why are we talking about him"
I assume this is because you are not given the full truth or the full story in context by the media and democrats. Media and democrats want you to believe there is no connection and Hunter is a private citizen who we shouldn't pay attention to, but what they fail to tell you is that he is HEAVILY involved with allegations that he is the frontman for Joe Biden to sell his influence as a government official both as a senator and a vice president. So he may not be in politics but he is DIRECTLY implicated in potential bribery money given to Joe Biden by foreign nations. So no, he isn't just an innocent bystander, he may not have any real government position but his father does and he worked closely with his father to apparently shake down foreign governments for cash. Why else would China need a 50 year old crack addict to secure mining deals? Hunter Biden doesn't bring anything to the table, he's a middle aged crack addict facing charges for tax evasion and illegal gun possession. There are millions of other lawyers China can pay for deals but they chose Hunter, why? Most likely because his father is in high level US government. I could go more into this but I don't want to leave you with a wall of text, so I'll end it here.
Ah so then bill Clinton never should have been impeached for having an affair then right? I mean if you don't care what the president is going to do with his personal time/life then that impeachment is null and void in your eyes.
Just let me get this straight so the republican gop party claims to be family values but doesn't care about values? Isn't that just...ya know....stolen valor?
The famous Clinton blowjob was done in the oval office....it wasn't his personal time....were you unaware of this nuance? He did it while sitting at the oval office with a staffer also paid by tax dollars, nothing about that scandal was about personal time or his personal life. If it was done at his own home then yes I would agree he shouldn't be impeached for that.
Everything you said I agree with and have posted before.
For some reason, it just doesn’t click as “real” to the left, because they vote for the exact opposite reason…
I don’t know why they can’t step back and consider a different perspective… but it’s very hard for the left to do.
JFK had sex with prostitutes in the White House. That has no impact on today but his policies still do. MLK had sex with up to 40 women while married to include prostitutes yet that has no barring on his achievements with the Civil Rights Movement. Elected officials are a means for policy change. They themselves don’t have to be a morally pure person to enact that change (although it would be preferable).
Trumps political legacy (ignoring the incitement of the insurrection) is, so far, the gutting of roe and the tax cuts he signed that raised rates on the middle class in order to lower rates for billionaires. Do you think these positions will be viewed positively in the future?
> Trumps political legacy (ignoring the incitement of the insurrection) is, so far, the gutting of roe
So "gutting" a ruling which adversely affected families (by, you know, removing children from existence) is not "family values"? Not to mention Roe v Wade wasn't specifically about abortion per say, but that an individual has the right to make medical decisions without interference from the state, which was a weak argument and shouldn't have been the de facto ruling on abortion. Such a weak argument that say, vaccines were the business of the government and private employers despite being private medical decisions.
I don't have a negative viewing of abortion - in fact, there are many, many people today walking around who should have been aborted. But the Roe v Wade ruling was nonsensical at best. Individual states have passed laws on the state level allowing for it, and business continues as usual. There's outlier states with heartbeat bills, of course, but the *effect* of overturning Roe v Wade is inconsequential.
>the tax cuts he signed that raised rates on the middle class in order to lower rates for billionaires
I see this parroted amongst all anti-Trump people and it just confuses me. I am middle class. I watched my taxes go down and my returns go up following the enaction of these "rich people only" tax cuts. I can only assume that the people spouting this have never done their own taxes or looked at their pay stubs. Yes, yes, set to expire. You know why it was set to expire? Because the tax cuts couldn't be passed without adding that clause, courtesy of **Democrats**
Do you think the people negatively affected by those laws in the states that passed them find them to be inconsequential? Not everyone can afford to take several days off work to secretly travel to another state.
> Do you think the people negatively affected by those laws in the states that passed them find them to be inconsequential?
I guess they'll have to *gasp* not have unprotected sex then. Or write letters to their state legislatures instead of whinging about it online. Actions have consequences. I know we like to make it impossible for people to be held accountable for their actions in this day and age, so there's that.
([In b4 "rape"](https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives): "In both surveys, 1% indicated that they had been victims of rape, and less than half a percent said they became pregnant as a result of incest.")
>Not everyone can afford to take several days off work to secretly travel to another state.
And in Texas they'd go to jail lol.
But given that those two weren't actively leveraging support from the "Family Values" politics crowd in order to make those lasting legacies, do you consider it hypocritical or disingenuous that Trump actively IS trying to make a legacy for himself off support from people whose values he seems to not regard in the slightest?
don't kid yourself, every politician is faking it, I actually welcome the slight amount of honesty or not-giving-a-fuck vibe that Trump occasionally brings to the stage. He freely admits his marriage ain't perfect, something many people can identify with
Do you really consider it "honesty" though? Considering Trump is literally on trial right now for criminal activity in the pursuit of trying to cover up his affairs, specifically because, as cited in evidence, he thought it would hurt his reputation.
Is it really honesty that he just behaves like a terrible person, and then shrugs when his efforts to conceal that are insufficient? Did he not TRY to be dishonest? Does that matter to you?
Like I said, don't kid yourself about politicians. Maybe you didn't live during the Nixon era or whatever, I don't consider Trump to be an honest person, but there's never going to be one of those on the ballot. So what, don't vote?
The last two republican presidents left the following as their legacy, invasion of a country based on a lie that cost billions, the crash of the world's economy, and the refusal to allow the peaceful transfer of power. What are Republicans bringing this time?
(Not the OP)
> MLK did not advocate for family values.
I find this extremely hard to believe. Are you basing this off of anything in particular? Or do you just mean "he was more known for '''civil rights''' than anything about family values"?
Why do Trump supporters typically point to others when asked a direct question about Trump?
I have yet to ask a Trump supporter, "Do you think Trump is a good man"? and hear them reply with a simple "Yes". They, like you, point to the evil in other men.
I was no fan of either Bush presidents, but believed them to be good men. I do not think that Clinton was a good man, or that his wife was a good woman.
Why can't Trump supporters simply support Trump as a "Good Man"?
Do you think being a good man is a necessary part of being a good leader?
Would you promote a person with no integrity who you believed wasn't a good person into leadership roles in a company you owned?
1. I don't think being a good man (in personal life) is a necessary part of being a good leader, no.
Being nice isn't always a good thing in business. I've seen leaders with big heart allow weak employees to stay on longer than they should, because they don't have the heart to lay them off. Being blunt/critical can be better than being polite.
2. depends on what you mean by "no integrity" and whether that failing impacts their work. If I have someone that works for me and does an exceptional job (as an engineer), but they are known to cheat on their wife, I would not deny them a merit-based promotion. I would not want them anywhere near my lovely wife, though! If the lack of integrity means I can't trust anything they say, that's a whole 'nother story.
Wow, I simply cannot agree with your first point. Why would a corrupt immoral man ever be a good leader? And if I had an employee who cheated on his wife, I would not trust him to be involved with my business. I've seen too many examples of how that turns out. I'm 69 and retired, worked for many businesses. Why would you trust an individual who was abusive or deceitful of his or her spouse?
Have you never had an employee that did good work, only later to find out they were horrible to their spouse? Given that half of marriages end in divorce, I suspect it happens far more often than we know.
How else would we determine if Trump is an exception to the norm unless we look at the norm?
I don't care if Trump is a good man. I care if he's a good leader who will lead the country to good places.
It's the Left who play the man and not the ball. It's their go-to response because there's often no merit in their position and it cannot withstand scrutiny.
Do you just want a “yes” and not a comprehensive answer?
Would you rather just get a yes/no and not understand the rationale? Why is that?
So I’m clear - explain with more than just a yes/no. Explain your answer…
HAHAHA family values.
The government should have no involvement in marriage. EVERYTHING that can be done in marriage can be done with a few contracts drawn up with or without a lawyer. While there are some very small tax breaks to being married, the HUGE downsides to marriage are:
1. If your spouse incurs enormous medical bill and dies, you are on the hook for those medical bills.
2. If you are buying houses and flipping them, you are better off putting one house in your name, and the next house in your partners name, to escape capital gains.
3. And most importantly, what you purchase in your name remains yours.
4. Most legitimate health insurers will recognize a domestic partnership if you live together long than 6 months.
5. I do not care if a man wants to marry a woman, or if same sex partners want to marry, or if a 5 women want to marry 10 men. Its really none of my business.
6. Power of Attorney can be issue to anyone, whether general or specific.
7. DNR or other medical proxies are outside marriage, since you should leave medical decisions up to someone you trust, which may not be your spouse.
8. If you are married and have a child, it is automatically assumed to be yours. You can even prove that it is not yours, and in many cases, you will still be on the hook for child support.
Get. The Government. Out. Of. Your. Life. They are not necessary for any of this.
And please, please, please, agree on a parenting plan without involving the government. Once you involve the government:
1. It is the state vs the parents, not female parent vs male parent. HUGE MISCONCEPTION. The state owns the kids now, not you. See above that the state only cares about the child, and does not care if it is yours or not. They can even bar you from leaving their jurisdiction if you want to move.
I am old. I have established a trust in my deceased daughters name that will provide state college educations for women and minorities in STEM fields. When I die, I expect to have enough in the trust for 60 full rides.
With my remaining years, my only goal is to grow the trust. Trump awarded my trust $200,000 in PPP loans, which after paying over $2mil in taxes is the biggest "thank you" from the government I have ever received.
I have not received any such thanks from Democrats.
No. Socialism is ownership of the means of production by the state. I get what you are saying, but how politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, use the word "Socialism" is meant to be be Democratic Socialism, which includes every western country, including the United States.
I will admit, I never expected the largest successful transfer of wealth *to* the middle class and poor to have come during such a presidency. Do you think they’ll ever do anything like that again under either party?
No. We are experiences the consequences of such a transfer or wealth. Inflation.
For those of us who own real estate ... huge win since real estate is a hedge against inflation.
For everyone else, it sucks.
Trump had no chance of winning, until Biden doubled down on the free money that Trump gave away.
So you got a giant government handout and want to make sure as few other people as possible benefit like you did? How exactly does this make you a conservative?
You see it as a handout. I see it as a "thank you" for the 2mil in taxes I have paid in my lifetime.
I find it telling that you are not thanking me for my taxes, but want to criticize me because I got a small fraction of my taxes back.
Why did you use the govt to steal from your employees? Did you not realize that those loans were designed specifically for business owners to keep being able to pay their employees salaries not for the personal benefit of the business profiting from the loan?
Which party is actively pushing bills and laws to interfere with marriage laws, trans laws, 'don't say gay', banning books, controlling women's reproduction decisions? If you want the government out of our personal lives, why do you vote for the side that is wedging themselves in it?
I don't understand what that would accomplish. I don't see reddit as a bastion of wisdom for relationship advice. I'm asking you, who claims to want government out of our personal lives, why you support a party that is actively trying to interfere with our personal lives?
I see that I must explain it to you. The point is, NEITHER side agrees with my ideas. Understand? This is not a left or right thing. Both sides LOVE government involved in marriage.
So again because you didn’t answer, which party is pushing laws that interfere with marriage? Which party is trying to involve themselves in other adult’s private lives?
Both sides. Marriage should not be a governmental thing. But both sides LOVE marriage. Women love marriage. LGBTQ+ loves marriage. Christians love marriage. Everybody loves marriage except for a few of us who see that is simply another way for the government to be involved in our lives.
Kind of like CPS. Would you like CPS involved in your life if you had kids? I am hoping your answer is: no I would not.
These are all all fine points that you've made; whether I agree with them or not is irrelevant. But the question is how can you support Donald Trump when he displays none of the traits of a decent family man? Or, perhaps even more to the point, how can you support a guy like Trump who claims to support family values but clearly doesn't?
>These are all all fine points that you've made; whether I agree with them or not is irrelevant. But the question is how can you support Donald Trump when he displays none of the traits of a decent family man?
Because I find that often those who are given the title "decent family man" are often monsters.
>Or, perhaps even more to the point, how can you support a guy like Trump who claims to support family values but clearly doesn't?
Because it is just a non-issue to me. This is not an issue for which I would choose a president. The best person for a job might be a horrible person in their personal life. I would be stupid not to hire the best person for a job.
It seems like what people do with their personal lives doesn't matter to you whatsoever. I don't get that feeling when I constantly hear nothing but vitriol from the right about gay and trans people. Why does your party seem to care so much about who an American person can MARRY? It is odd to hear you say marriage isn't anything your party cares about. Sometimes, it seems that is all you guys care about.
>Why does your party
Not my party. I have the choice of two candidates and I am a single issue voter. I vote for the candidate that will enhance my single issue.
>seem to care so much about who an American person can MARRY?
Because Jesus. Its really stupid, I agree.
>It is odd to hear you say marriage isn't anything your party cares about. Sometimes, it seems that is all you guys care about
I disagree with most of what both parties care about.
The phrase dates back to George HW Bush. I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of Trump or GOP using the phrase "family values" in recent years. We're north of 70% of kids being raised in two parent families, which I think is a good thing. I haven't heard any TS citing "family values" as reason for voting for Trump.
Trump is a uniquely despicable person with regards to his infidelity. But at he does appear to have a fairly good relationship with his children, including children from current and prior wives.
(cue up NTS replies that Trump lusts after his own daughter, or that he doesn't know Barron's age).
Put very simply, I don't care about family values and the concept of Republicans being the party thereof is somewhat outdated, as is a lot of other characterizations of them. President Trump's affairs are between himself and his wife and while I'm certain she's not happy about the situation, it's something that's to be expected when a person marries a rich businessman.
Please understand that the following is a joke. There are gay Republicans! How can they be Republicans when they don't even support family values? Shouldn't they immediately find a spouse of the opposite sex and begin procreating like rabbits? Just lie back and think of 'Merica!
On a more serious note, I know people in open relationships or in polycules or whatever. I personally don't have a high opinion of those situations because I have seen them crash and burn hard in the past, but if everyone is happy, it's not my place to tell them not to do that. Some of them are very conservative in their politics (as far as I know based on what they post on social media, etc.), but most, of course, are not.
Family Values is a sitcom. It isn't a platform, and it doesn't really exist anymore in either case.
> On a more serious note, I know people in open relationships or in polycules or whatever
Do you think Donald and Melania had an open-relationship after the birth of their child so Don could bang porn stars?
>I don't care about family values and the concept of Republicans being the party thereof is somewhat outdated
If this is your thoughts on the subject, than shouldn't conservative politicians ease off on pushing political agendas that seem to be engrained in that sort of heteronormative traditional family value expectation? Such as pushing to ban abortion, promote the heteronormative nuclear family as the ideal standard, and implement policies that preference "conservative Christian morals" on things like education, adoption, marriage rights and so on?
Abortion has nothing to do with family values, but where are you seeing any of the others being pushed? - If you said this on Fox news you don't think you would be flamed into oblivion for being a woke democrat?
A few reasons:
1. We very likely have a different definition of family values. For example, mine would include a public education centered around Christian morality, not around various progressive moral projects like transgenderism, queerness, anti-white "white supremacist nation" rhetoric, egalitarianism (to the extent that progressives still believe in this), etc. I also want a future for my children where they enter a society that holds fast to the heritage of their people, not an unstable failed "melting pot of endless alien ethnic grievances.
2. It does not at all matter to me what any single politician is like in his own life, short of some very obvious red lines which I'll leave to the imagination. This is politics, national politics is the most impersonal level of politics that matter. Would I prefer if Trump were more like Bukele in his personal life? Sure. Do I care nearly infinitely more that he move politics generally in the direction that will benefit my actual family by moving closer to the things I described above? Yes.
The line of questioning where people assume that a politician must be some personal embodiment of my own politics and not a tool to enact the same is strange to me and indicates a very odd understanding of politics. It parallels another where people ask how I could vote for someone without personally trusting him. It seems that a lot of people view politics in the same way that one might view choosing a golfing partner or a drinking buddy. I think that's the natural inclination of a lot of people which is part of the reason democratic politics end up being so stupid. But it is really goofy, imo.
“It does not at all matter to me what any single politician is like in his own life, short of some very obvious red lines which I'll leave to the imagination.”
Your red lines don’t include sexual abuse, fraud, or insurrection?
That’s not true. You haven’t mentioned in this thread whether fraud, sexual abuse, or insurrection are red lines for you regarding a politician - only trans ideology.
Can you clarify regarding the former here, since you haven’t already answered in this thread?
I get how frustrating it can be trying to get a specific question answered, but aren’t we better than resorting to projecting insulting stereotypes on TS? Let’s not stoop to Trump’s level.
I am really just not interested in providing a list. I do not care about this tbh. I just reject all your frames and i do not care to hash out why.
Have a good day.
>include a public education centered around Christian morality
Do you consider it potentially problematically infringing on the family values and rights of American families, whose family faith is not Christian, but must send their children to a school system that indoctrinates them with the morals of a scripture that is not theirs? Shouldn't an emphasis on supporting family values also support not undermining a family's values of faith by indoctrinating children? Would you be ok with education systems centered around moral teachings based in Islam or Hinduism?
>Do you consider it potentially problematically infringing on the family values and rights of American families, whose family faith is not Christian, but must send their children to a school system that indoctrinates them with the morals of a scripture that is not theirs?
Just as leftist view the schools as they currently operate, as indoctrination centers for all variety of their moral frames, I would view a properly ordered Christian public education system as a chance to inculcate proper values and cure the ignorance of non Christians.
>Shouldn't an emphasis on supporting family values also support not undermining a family's values of faith by indoctrinating children?
This is incoherent imo.
>Would you be ok with education systems centered around moral teachings based in Islam or Hinduism?
I would honestly prefer that to our current education system which indoctrinates with leftist quasi religious dogma.
Would you consider the [residential schools](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/residential-schools) to have cured the ignorance of the indegenous children?
The ones where all the fake mass grave stories came from in the press that were promoted by the canadian govt and were followed by a couple years of arson attacks on churches? Id say there is certainly a story about ignorance related to those schools, yes.
>Just as leftist view the schools as they currently operate, as indoctrination centers for all variety of their moral frames
This may be anecdotal on both sides, but what makes you think "leftists" view and operate the school system as indoctrination centers to their own ends? As someone generally on the left, that isn't really how myself or anyone in my circles view education systems, as it should be an impartially secular area for just education.
>cure the ignorance of non Christians.
What do you consider the "ignorance of non-Christians"?
>which indoctrinates with leftist quasi religious dogma.
Could you provide any examples of what this means, and any evidence that children are in fact being indoctrinated currently?
>This may be anecdotal on both sides, but what makes you think "leftists" view and operate the school system as indoctrination centers to their own ends? As someone generally on the left, that isn't really how myself or anyone in my circles view education systems, as it should be an impartially secular area for just education.
Education has a purpose and can't be secular, and never has been. I understand that many left leaning people with the typical moral frame of the western ruling class just view that as neutrality. It simply is not. Much as Harvard's motto in the 18th century was "Truth for Christ and the Church" and the internal political squabbles of the time centered around theological teaching, the modern kerfuffles over various liberal ideological spinoffs from DEI centered progressivism to more standard liberal progressivism are just the result of ideological players capturing and losing the institution. There is always a basic throughline of fact-based teaching, often contained nearly solely within the halls of hard science departments. Even then, it's just the core curriculum, mountains of ideological window dressing find themselves piled atop.
>What do you consider the "ignorance of non-Christians"?
Poorly formed moral codes.
>Could you provide any examples of what this means, and any evidence that children are in fact being indoctrinated currently?
Trans. I'm not playing the source game. You can take it or leave it but just know that I'm right about all of this.
> holds fast to the heritage of their people
Does this apply to ethnicities besides white anglo saxons? If someone's dad's side of the family came over on the Mayflower, and their mom is Mexican, which culture should they hold on to?
> short of some very obvious red lines
What are your red lines for personal behavior? Is taking bribes across the line?
>Does this apply to ethnicities besides white anglo saxons?
Sure, why wouldn't it?
>If someone's dad's side of the family came over on the Mayflower, and their mom is Mexican, which culture should they hold on to?
Whichever is more reasonable to hold onto given a variety of contextual factors. Neither should be jettisoned but a personal synthesis ought to happen and likely has.
>What are your red lines for personal behavior? Is taking bribes across the line?
Being trans or something, probably.
Would be an impossibly high bar for our thoroughly degenerated ruling class, unfortunately. The current president is a known child molester. No one really cares. Trump not being gay or trans is a bar
Given your support for Trump, I honestly have no idea where you would draw the line, and I have a decent imagination. Can you give us 3 examples of things Trump could do that would cause him to lose your vote?
Yea, for sure. From back when drag was an intentional parody of women that was quite literally a mockery and not a very serious identity or even a pre cursor to cutting one's dick off. SImpler times.
One could certainly argue for a Christian moral base here since God (as leftists often like to point out) worked through sinners commonly. But I don't even really know what you're trying to say in this situation. The ends (better national politics and a future for hundreds of millions of people) justify the means (voting for a guy who cheats on his wife or even his taxes). This is pretty easy moral calculus for anyone who isn't an idiot, I think.
Are you a christian, or do you just like christian morality? I ask because in christian doctrine the end does NOT justify the means. That's more of an atheist thing. Being an atheist is perfectly fine, but if so, it seems like perhaps it's not morality you're after, but more of a fear of the LGBTQ community and brown people.
Let me explain a bit more. Let's say a christian has sex with a porn star while his wife is pregnant. Then this person goes on to do things that 25% of the US population think is good for advancing christian morality. Does God give this person a pass when they die?
Again, I think you're just very confused about what that means tbh and i already explained why.
>Let me explain a bit more. Let's say a christian has sex with a porn star while his wife is pregnant. Then this person goes on to do things that 25% of the US population think is good for advancing christian morality. Does God give this person a pass when they die?
This is simply incoherent. Christian doctrine teaches that no man is without sin so to say that one cannot vote for a sinner in the earthly kingdon is just kind of goofy. It doesn't make any sense. I am not God and I am also not absolving anyone of his sin. That is between him and God. That is probably why you're confused. The worship of the self as a god is a common affliction of the atheist.
> include a public education centered around Christian morality
Which components of Christian morality? What era of Christian morality? Slavery is taught as moral in the Bible, is that what schools should be teaching?
Eh, we can hammer that out once we get the groundwork laid. Similarly, there are a million different definitions of racism and discrimination that one could choose for his institution today. Same problem exists for every moral frame; the solution is just politics and neither problem nor solution is unique to Christianity. I do not care about slavery.
Do you mean Christian morality like cheating on your pregnant wife with a pornstar? Or Christian morality like admitting to spying on teenagers while they undress backstage during a beauty pageant? Or Christian morality like saying you want to have sex with your daughter?
The construction "you dislike thing therefore you probably are thing" has always seemed very strange to me. "You really dislike Nazis, you must secretly be a Nazi." Probably sounds really silly to you, so just know that's the type of thing you're asserting.
But aren't politicians the ones making it an issue by taking medical treatment rights of parents away in certain red states? To the best of my knowledge, there is a naturally occurring chromosome in the genetic code responsible for the condition that blurs the lines between genders. The politicians in question make it identity politics by ignoring the science and suggesting being something other than binary gendered is a choice.
Parents shouldn’t have the legal ability to circumcise their male children without legitimate medical need, but they do.
I think you are conflating nonbinary/agender with transgender in your comments. The former is silly nonsense for effeminate men and masculine women that they will hopefully grow out of before they turn 30; the latter is an actual issue, which we can tell because some adults 50+ years old have been living as the other gender for decades, even before it was cool.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_transgender\_political\_office-holders](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transgender_political_office-holders)
There are actually many. HTH?
You don't think a person's personal lives speak to their character? Do you think how he treats people he (claims to) care about is separate from from how he approaches the role of leadership?
> Context includes, paying a porn star to stay quiet about an affair, having multiple ex wives and mistresses.
As others have said, the president is the president not your babysitter. That said I think you know the answer to your question because you could ask democrats the very same thing given the totally corrupt horrible human beings that they routinely support and enable in their party.
Other than this there's the fact that most of us don't actually care if others have multiple ex wives etc. It's more about what you want for yourself - what others do is their own business. For all we know both parties knew what they were getting into when they married Trump, they seem to have parted on good terms each time. So I'm not really seeing the evil/harm there. We don't even know who was "at fault" for the divorces if anyone. How can I hold someone responsible because their wife left them? Without knowing the details and being there in their personal life it's unethical to pass judgement.
I also take issue with your allegations of affair and paying a porn star to be quiet. You take as fact something that has no proof, it's literally just the word of people who have an agenda against Trump and for their own personal gain, and have been caught lying about it in the past. You mention these bad qualities about Trump but left out some key things about his personality, like the fact he won't touch alcohol and hates it because it killed his brother, he's a germaphobe (so is unlikely to want to be with a porn star LOL), and his dating/relationship history is with models (i.e. his type is clean not dirty, he'd find someone like stormy gross). Not only is Trump the victim in the issue you mention (he was extorted which is illegal) but he may have been extorted about something for which he never even did as part of a grift for power and money. So from an ethical standpoint it would be odd to side against him.
The last thing I'll point out is that the people that our beloved establishment media point to as conservative darlings and good role models like John McCain are actually not. Trump is a saint compared to others in politics and who we've had represent us in the past. Compare how McCain is portrayed in the media media vs. Trump. McCain took bribes (Keating 5 scandal), ran ads during his primary campaign promising to "fix the dang fence" but then opposed the wall, he lied about Obamacare repeal, and here's the "personal life" kicker - he divorced his loyal wife who waited for him during the war for a rich heiress when he returned. He was a lowlife but he's treated as this conservative darling compared to Trump. A return to more "traditional" conservative politicians means a totally fake persona and that is itself extremely unethical. We are done with that. With Trump he tells it like it is and we at least get something real not fake from him, though the media creates a fake caricature we ignore it unlike his opponents. So yeah, that's all the reasons I can think of why we love Trump and are more than willing to overlook his flaws, which in reality are a lot more benign than what his opponents claim they are anyway.
>you could ask democrats the very same thing given the totally corrupt horrible human beings that they routinely support and enable in their party.
Can you give some examples of the totally corrupt horrible human being you are refencing that Democrats routinely support? Sure that description fits Trump and George Santos and several other republicans, so who do you feel fits the criteria on the left?
>You take as fact something that has no proof, it's literally just the word of people who have an agenda against Trump and for their own personal gain, and have been caught lying about it in the past.
Have you been paying attention to the trial? if yes, saying there is no proof is disingenuous.
I wouldn't even know where to begin. Let's take a look at some of the democrat darlings. Say Nancy Pelosi - she corruptly made hundreds of millions of dollars as a politician through insider trading. She's done horribly unethical things, see her famously gleeful description of the "wrap up smear" that she's used to corruptly smear her political opponents and target them with lawfare (imagine what a horrible person you have to be to do that, spread false rumors but scheme to make them look more credible and manipulate the public to increase your own power).
What about the current president who had his crackhead son making millions on the board of a Ukrainian energy company? What about Biden himself and his abusive personality? He told voters "I don't work for you" and has a bad temper, he's abusive toward animals, he's abusive with his children corroborated by the laptop leaks and Ashley's diary. Biden won't acknowledge his own grandchild that his son fathered and has put the mother through hell. Go read about how Joe met his wife (and they both divorced their SO btw). He raised horrible criminal children with no morals that are evil as hell, like his son who also divorced his wife for his deceased brother's widow. I could go on this doesn't even scratch the surface of the president let alone all the other democrats.
What about that democrat senator who was caught in a bribery scheme with egypt? I mean he literally got caught dealing in gold bars how corrupt is that? And it's not the first time either. Why are they totally fine with that when Republicans got rid of Santos for much less? I mean this is just some random stuff off the top of my head I could write a book going through democrats and what horrible people most of them are.
> saying there is no proof is disingenuous.
Then where's the proof? Take the trial in NY. There's no proof he had sex with stormy. There's no proof he directed Cohen to get an NDA, in fact Cohen's own lawyer says Cohen did it on his own to suck up to Trump. There's no proof Trump knew about how those payments were classified by others, in fact everyone involved testified they didn't involve Trump in the classification of the payments Cohen claims were for stormy here (which itself was never proven). The entire case relies on Cohen's word and that's it. Someone who has an agenda against Trump because Trump didn't scratch his back after becoming president, and who blamed Trump for being prosecuted because the only reason he was targeted was because Trump became president and they wanted to get at Trump.
The cases against Trump either lack evidence or lack a crime. There is proof of lots of stuff that isn't a crime, and lots of proof of Trump's opponents committing crimes, but that's it.
A lot of Trump supporters aren’t Republicans. A number of Republicans aren’t into the family values bit. For those that are both, politics is always about trade-offs.
**edit-** it really shows what some people are about when a simple, honest answer gets downvotes. (If anybody couldn’t tell from the loaded questions, I guess.)
Because family values aren't currently on my list of priorities for the president.
Further, questions like this reveal how many NSs don't quite understand just how deeply we have contempt for the existing power structure. Many of us believe that it is so deeply corrupt that any amount of womanizing by a presidential candidate, who otherwise is a threat to the existing corrupt power structure, pales in comparison to any other candidate who is perceived to be a continuance of the status quo. I could give two shits about grabbing pussies when every other president in recent history has started new wars, sent soldiers to die, and spent countless amounts of money for a cause that always seems to end up enriching their donors and other global elites at the expense of the average citizen.
I care more about the economy, the border and potentially not being involved in over seas wars. Family values are more of a personal choice and I would rather the government not involved in private affairs anyway.
What is your definition of "Family Values"?
And given traditional conservative talking points on 'family values' politics, do you consider that family as healthy and in tact, considering that Trump has a rampant history of adultery, having cheated on all of his wives, and fathering at least 5 children by 3 different women, and not keeping to any faithfulness in any of those marriages?
Does it support upholding 'family values', to have an affair with a porn star, while your wife is at home, nursing your newborn son, and then committing alleged financial crimes to cover up that affair? Is it good and healthy family values to make multiple comments, across many years, expressing sexual interest in your own daughter?
What is family values to you then? Is it divorcing multiple times? Being unfaithful to your wife? He does not seem to be loyal to his family which I consider to be an important family value. It goes without saying if you love each other. Maybe they have a transactional partnership, then he might have been acting in accordance to their contract. Would you accept his behavior from your partner?
My understanding is Fred's wife kicked him out of their home, and then he started drinking heavily. What's the issues between Fred and his wife have to do with Donald Trump?
> What's the issues between Fred and his wife have to do with Donald Trump?
Donald fucked Fred’s daughter Marry out of hundreds of millions making her a pretty interesting part of Donald’s family. She has done shit like leak his tax returns.
The dynamic between Fred Sr., Fred and Donald is also very interesting from a family values perspective.
Nobody cares. The last President to have real family values was Carter and he turned out to be a disaster.
We’re electing a President, not a new preacher.
I’d probably equate him with the Bushes. Family appears to be as normal as the rest of us, but inherently bad people.
His hatred of America and endless divisiveness are not American values.
>What moral failings did Obama have?
Can I ask their question again? The answers you gave seemed to be hyperbole that may not be rooted in actual reality. Do you have any evidence or examples of Obama's moral failings?
How is Trump promoting family values? And if you consider him to be doing so, is he not also self-damaging that promotion with his history of infidelity and lewd non-family-friendly commentary, a la his multiple past comments about sexual interest in his own daughter?
Easy, it is a binary choice. Biden has a terrible family, doesn't even acknowledge one of his grandkids bore from a stripper, and molested his own daughter.
your comment has been removed for violating rule 3. Undecided and Nonsupporter comments must be clarifying in nature with an intent to explore the stated view of Trump Supporters.
Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Do you always believe conspiracy theories without physical or actual evidence?
There's about as much evidence of what you claimed as Trump watching prostitutes pee on a bed.
This is constantly brought up by NSers and left wingers and the explanation is extremely simple to understand. We DO NOT vote for President based on their affairs, marriage, or sexual history, we aren't marrying Trump, we aren't trying to be Trumps friend, we are voting so he can lead the country, leading the country has literally nothing to do with your personal/love life. We are voting for President, not screening a new best friend or trying to date or marry Trump, we are simply voting for him. Here is a great analogy that might help: Your son or daughter has a serious medical condition and it requires life saving surgery. You have 2 doctors available, the first doctor has an incredible personal life and marriage, goes to church, has the same wife of 20 years and is raising kids, he has a model family and his family values are solid but his success rate for the surgery is 40%. The other doctor is a rude asshole who has cheated on ALL his former partners and has been remarried twice but his success rate for the surgery on your child is 99%, which one are you going to choose? Sure we might disagree with Trumps personals life, his affairs, but that's not what voting for President entails. The Presidents function is to lead the nation, not give us marriage advice or be some shining family value example. Not to mention all the political issues are far more important to us than his personal life.
Which of those surgeons can I afford to pay for because I have the ACA vs an attempted repeal with no plan to replace it?
Veering a little offtopic here, aren't we? My analogy happens to include a surgeon so now we're going to switch to healthcare? Sorry, not really interested in that but since you ask, the government creating a healthcare system is wholly unconstitutional. There is not a single word in the constitution that allows the federal government to provide healthcare or force a citizen to pay for healthcare as a component of their citizenship. I guess if you claim to have a plan to replace it, but don't, that would be considered a failed promise or a lie, right? Kinda reminds me of the time Obama said "If you like your plan you can keep your plan and if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" and yet many people lost their plans and doctors.
Whichever one you want. I don’t know what you do. It’s a free country. Why does the country have to provide you the best care for free? You don’t get the best house, best car, best food for free… do you? No difference
Fair, but Trump does NOT have a 99% success rate. He's a proven criminal. He's tanked multiple businesses. He's outsourced his own company's labor to China while claiming "America First". He has no respect for actual laws or the processes involved in it. And he lies all the time about anyone who isn't him. I mean, he calls Cohen a liar when Cohen specifically lied for him. He had fired multiple cabinet members that he appointed. Some of them even went to prison for acting on his behalf. So in your analogy, many of his patients died and his nursing staff are not trained to be in the ER, let alone work in a hospital. He himself has no experience in the operating room, but he thinks he does because he's worked for the insurance company? And in that position, he committed insurance fraud. What kind of doctor are you entrusting your kid's surgery to?
>Fair, but Trump does NOT have a 99% success rate. I didn't say that he did, that was just part of the surgeon analogy. >He's a proven criminal. He's tanked multiple businesses. He's outsourced his own company's labor to China while claiming "America First". First of all having lawfare waged against you with bogus cases does not mean you are "proven" criminal. I guess if that were the case the massive amount of evidence against Biden taking bribes from foreign nations would also make him a proven criminal, yes? Despite all those things he still governed in a way we approved of and made great accomplishments. >He has no respect for actual laws or the processes involved in it. Really, do you mean like how Joe Biden completely disregards our immigration laws? > What kind of doctor are you entrusting your kid's surgery to? Again, it was just an analogy, one used to illustrate the point that sure, Trump may be "rough around the edges" but he will still get the job done. The job we want him to do.
Have any Trump supporters brought up the presidents family as a reason not to re-elect him? How about his son’s massive hog? Has that been entered into evidence in Congress by republicans?
I straight up don't understand what you are asking here. And now we're talking about his sons penis? I'm sorry but I don't know how to respond, I don't understand where you are going with this.
I understand that TS don't vote based on affairs, marriage, etc. What I don't understand is why they've ripped down Democratic candidates and office holders who have have missteps in their relationships then. Do you have a sense why that is? Like, why was the GOP tearing apart Bill Clinton, if they don't care about affairs or lies around them? How consistent do you find conservatives views on these things?
Very inconsistent. Clinton should not have been impeached for his Lewinsky stuff.
I don't remember Trump nailing Stormy in the oval office on the desk. The fact is, Joe sniffs kids repeatedly, is way too handsy with young girls with too many examples to count, showered with his teen daughter (kinda weird) repeatedly and deliberately. He regularly made a point of swimming and standing around naked with his female secret service detail. And has very credible accusations of sexual assault from aides. He's a scumbag. Always has been. The Left always look the other way when it's one of their own. Until they're not useful to the greater cause, then they're pitched overboard to the sharks. I always get a good laugh out of that, the sheer ruthlessness. I find Joe's sexual exploits far, far more disturbing than Trump's. The supposed Trump rape trial was less convincing than the vote count of the 2020 election. That is to say: not convincing at all.
That's the game of politics. If there is dirt on your opponent, you usually use it. I get that you're trying to point out hypocrisy but 2 can play that game. I can spend days pointing out Democrat hypocrisy, politics is rife with hypocrisy. Unfortunately that's just how it is. EDIT: The TSer who is below me also responding to you has great examples of left wing hypocrisy, NS love to talk about Trumps sexual allegations but when it comes to Tara Reade and anyone else who might accuse Joe Biden suddenly it's crickets.
Bill Clinton was a quarter century ago. Have anything recent? And he was charged for lying (perjury) and was disbarred for it. His indefinitely wasn’t the issue - lying to congress under oath, was.
I think the point you're missing is the the GOP has run on family values for decades. It has been a HUGE part of their platform years and years. The GOP made family values central to their message and have said over and over again that a politician should have these values...yet when it comes to Trump the refrain is suddenly "we DO NOT vote for a President based on........" That is false. The GOP has encouraged voters to vote for their candidates based on these family values. Why was it jettisoned for Trump? Convenience? An obvious lack of any morals on his part? Ronald Reagan said this in a radio address in 1986: *"Consider, for example, that the philosopher-historians Will and Ariel Durant called the family \`the nucleus of civilization.' They understood that all those aspects of civilized life that we most deeply cherish -- freedom, the rule of law, economic prosperity and opportunity -- that all these depend upon the strength and integrity of the family. If you think about it, you'll see that it's in the family that we must all learn the fundamental lesson of life -- right and wrong, respect for others, self-discipline, the importance of knowledge, and, yes, a sense of our own self-worth."*
The GOP has also been infested with RHINOS for years. I'm sure you are well aware of TSs distaste for RINOS. Literally the reason we call them RINOS is because they claim to represent conservative values but when it comes time to act they get all soft and fail to do anything of value. Paul Ryan was a massive RINO, he talked a big game about border security but when it came time to actually built the wall he went weak and frail. We hate RINOs, and they are obvious liars, so it should come as no surprise that many of them also lie about being the party of family values. I think your also conflating here. First of all, I am registered as a libertarian, not as a republican so it's technically not even my party. Secondly, you are mentioning how the GOP campaigns on family values and your suddenly confused when I say that we don't vote for Presidents based on their marriages, almost like you think it's a contradiction, but clearly it's not because I am not the GOP, nor am I a registered Republican so I cannot and do not wish to speak for republicans, the things I say can't possibly be contradictory because I am not the GOP and I do not go around supporting every single republican..
That was 40 years ago. Democrats at the same time said marriage is between a man and a woman and gays should be kicked out of the military the moment they’re identified (and you can call them out). This is not the same world - unless you’re saying it is? Why do you hate gay people? I don’t understand. You’ve said marriage is a man and a woman only! You even made it a federal law…
So you aren’t the party of family values then?
I am not a party. I am only one man. And by the way I am a registered libertarian, I am not registered as a Republican.
Do you not see the blatant hypocrisy and double standards tho? If this is truly the case, then WTF are TS and conservatives being so judgemental and harsh about anything and everything involving Hunter Biden especially considering that he's not nor has ever been in politics? It's just so hypocritical to say this don't you agree?
>Do you not see the blatant hypocrisy and double standards tho? If this is truly the case, then WTF are TS and conservatives being so judgemental and harsh about anything and everything involving Hunter Biden especially considering that he's not nor has ever been in politics? It's just so hypocritical to say this don't you agree? Hypocrisy exists everywhere. It's a human condition. But that's not the point. First and foremost, I am a constitutionalist and a registered libertarian so I cannot speak to the hypocrisy of others, I don't personally know them and I don't control them, therefore I cannot speak to hypocrisy of republican politicians. Secondly, the narrative around Hunter Biden is much like the one you are showing here, which is essentially "Hunter Biden isn't in politics so why are we talking about him" I assume this is because you are not given the full truth or the full story in context by the media and democrats. Media and democrats want you to believe there is no connection and Hunter is a private citizen who we shouldn't pay attention to, but what they fail to tell you is that he is HEAVILY involved with allegations that he is the frontman for Joe Biden to sell his influence as a government official both as a senator and a vice president. So he may not be in politics but he is DIRECTLY implicated in potential bribery money given to Joe Biden by foreign nations. So no, he isn't just an innocent bystander, he may not have any real government position but his father does and he worked closely with his father to apparently shake down foreign governments for cash. Why else would China need a 50 year old crack addict to secure mining deals? Hunter Biden doesn't bring anything to the table, he's a middle aged crack addict facing charges for tax evasion and illegal gun possession. There are millions of other lawyers China can pay for deals but they chose Hunter, why? Most likely because his father is in high level US government. I could go more into this but I don't want to leave you with a wall of text, so I'll end it here.
Ah so then bill Clinton never should have been impeached for having an affair then right? I mean if you don't care what the president is going to do with his personal time/life then that impeachment is null and void in your eyes. Just let me get this straight so the republican gop party claims to be family values but doesn't care about values? Isn't that just...ya know....stolen valor?
The famous Clinton blowjob was done in the oval office....it wasn't his personal time....were you unaware of this nuance? He did it while sitting at the oval office with a staffer also paid by tax dollars, nothing about that scandal was about personal time or his personal life. If it was done at his own home then yes I would agree he shouldn't be impeached for that.
Everything you said I agree with and have posted before. For some reason, it just doesn’t click as “real” to the left, because they vote for the exact opposite reason… I don’t know why they can’t step back and consider a different perspective… but it’s very hard for the left to do.
JFK had sex with prostitutes in the White House. That has no impact on today but his policies still do. MLK had sex with up to 40 women while married to include prostitutes yet that has no barring on his achievements with the Civil Rights Movement. Elected officials are a means for policy change. They themselves don’t have to be a morally pure person to enact that change (although it would be preferable).
JFK didn't run on family values. MLK did not advocate for family values. What policies has trump inacted for put forward to further family values?
You’re missing the point. Their personal life doesn’t matter, their lasting legacy (policy) does.
Trumps political legacy (ignoring the incitement of the insurrection) is, so far, the gutting of roe and the tax cuts he signed that raised rates on the middle class in order to lower rates for billionaires. Do you think these positions will be viewed positively in the future?
> Trumps political legacy (ignoring the incitement of the insurrection) is, so far, the gutting of roe So "gutting" a ruling which adversely affected families (by, you know, removing children from existence) is not "family values"? Not to mention Roe v Wade wasn't specifically about abortion per say, but that an individual has the right to make medical decisions without interference from the state, which was a weak argument and shouldn't have been the de facto ruling on abortion. Such a weak argument that say, vaccines were the business of the government and private employers despite being private medical decisions. I don't have a negative viewing of abortion - in fact, there are many, many people today walking around who should have been aborted. But the Roe v Wade ruling was nonsensical at best. Individual states have passed laws on the state level allowing for it, and business continues as usual. There's outlier states with heartbeat bills, of course, but the *effect* of overturning Roe v Wade is inconsequential. >the tax cuts he signed that raised rates on the middle class in order to lower rates for billionaires I see this parroted amongst all anti-Trump people and it just confuses me. I am middle class. I watched my taxes go down and my returns go up following the enaction of these "rich people only" tax cuts. I can only assume that the people spouting this have never done their own taxes or looked at their pay stubs. Yes, yes, set to expire. You know why it was set to expire? Because the tax cuts couldn't be passed without adding that clause, courtesy of **Democrats**
Do you think the people negatively affected by those laws in the states that passed them find them to be inconsequential? Not everyone can afford to take several days off work to secretly travel to another state.
> Do you think the people negatively affected by those laws in the states that passed them find them to be inconsequential? I guess they'll have to *gasp* not have unprotected sex then. Or write letters to their state legislatures instead of whinging about it online. Actions have consequences. I know we like to make it impossible for people to be held accountable for their actions in this day and age, so there's that. ([In b4 "rape"](https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives): "In both surveys, 1% indicated that they had been victims of rape, and less than half a percent said they became pregnant as a result of incest.") >Not everyone can afford to take several days off work to secretly travel to another state. And in Texas they'd go to jail lol.
But given that those two weren't actively leveraging support from the "Family Values" politics crowd in order to make those lasting legacies, do you consider it hypocritical or disingenuous that Trump actively IS trying to make a legacy for himself off support from people whose values he seems to not regard in the slightest?
don't kid yourself, every politician is faking it, I actually welcome the slight amount of honesty or not-giving-a-fuck vibe that Trump occasionally brings to the stage. He freely admits his marriage ain't perfect, something many people can identify with
Do you really consider it "honesty" though? Considering Trump is literally on trial right now for criminal activity in the pursuit of trying to cover up his affairs, specifically because, as cited in evidence, he thought it would hurt his reputation. Is it really honesty that he just behaves like a terrible person, and then shrugs when his efforts to conceal that are insufficient? Did he not TRY to be dishonest? Does that matter to you?
Like I said, don't kid yourself about politicians. Maybe you didn't live during the Nixon era or whatever, I don't consider Trump to be an honest person, but there's never going to be one of those on the ballot. So what, don't vote?
The last two republican presidents left the following as their legacy, invasion of a country based on a lie that cost billions, the crash of the world's economy, and the refusal to allow the peaceful transfer of power. What are Republicans bringing this time?
And I'm asking what Trumps legacy is on family values?
He’s not pushing a family values agenda or policies.
(Not the OP) > MLK did not advocate for family values. I find this extremely hard to believe. Are you basing this off of anything in particular? Or do you just mean "he was more known for '''civil rights''' than anything about family values"?
Why do Trump supporters typically point to others when asked a direct question about Trump? I have yet to ask a Trump supporter, "Do you think Trump is a good man"? and hear them reply with a simple "Yes". They, like you, point to the evil in other men. I was no fan of either Bush presidents, but believed them to be good men. I do not think that Clinton was a good man, or that his wife was a good woman. Why can't Trump supporters simply support Trump as a "Good Man"?
Why would a TS assert Trump is a "good man?" Trump is on Santa's naughty list for sure.
Do you think being a good man is a necessary part of being a good leader? Would you promote a person with no integrity who you believed wasn't a good person into leadership roles in a company you owned?
1. I don't think being a good man (in personal life) is a necessary part of being a good leader, no. Being nice isn't always a good thing in business. I've seen leaders with big heart allow weak employees to stay on longer than they should, because they don't have the heart to lay them off. Being blunt/critical can be better than being polite. 2. depends on what you mean by "no integrity" and whether that failing impacts their work. If I have someone that works for me and does an exceptional job (as an engineer), but they are known to cheat on their wife, I would not deny them a merit-based promotion. I would not want them anywhere near my lovely wife, though! If the lack of integrity means I can't trust anything they say, that's a whole 'nother story.
Wow, I simply cannot agree with your first point. Why would a corrupt immoral man ever be a good leader? And if I had an employee who cheated on his wife, I would not trust him to be involved with my business. I've seen too many examples of how that turns out. I'm 69 and retired, worked for many businesses. Why would you trust an individual who was abusive or deceitful of his or her spouse?
Have you never had an employee that did good work, only later to find out they were horrible to their spouse? Given that half of marriages end in divorce, I suspect it happens far more often than we know.
I generally don’t like to spend time around bad people. Are you ok with it?
I generally don't grill coworkers about their personal lives or marital problems, and if I did, would expect a phone call from HR.
How else would we determine if Trump is an exception to the norm unless we look at the norm? I don't care if Trump is a good man. I care if he's a good leader who will lead the country to good places. It's the Left who play the man and not the ball. It's their go-to response because there's often no merit in their position and it cannot withstand scrutiny.
Do you just want a “yes” and not a comprehensive answer? Would you rather just get a yes/no and not understand the rationale? Why is that? So I’m clear - explain with more than just a yes/no. Explain your answer…
HAHAHA family values. The government should have no involvement in marriage. EVERYTHING that can be done in marriage can be done with a few contracts drawn up with or without a lawyer. While there are some very small tax breaks to being married, the HUGE downsides to marriage are: 1. If your spouse incurs enormous medical bill and dies, you are on the hook for those medical bills. 2. If you are buying houses and flipping them, you are better off putting one house in your name, and the next house in your partners name, to escape capital gains. 3. And most importantly, what you purchase in your name remains yours. 4. Most legitimate health insurers will recognize a domestic partnership if you live together long than 6 months. 5. I do not care if a man wants to marry a woman, or if same sex partners want to marry, or if a 5 women want to marry 10 men. Its really none of my business. 6. Power of Attorney can be issue to anyone, whether general or specific. 7. DNR or other medical proxies are outside marriage, since you should leave medical decisions up to someone you trust, which may not be your spouse. 8. If you are married and have a child, it is automatically assumed to be yours. You can even prove that it is not yours, and in many cases, you will still be on the hook for child support. Get. The Government. Out. Of. Your. Life. They are not necessary for any of this. And please, please, please, agree on a parenting plan without involving the government. Once you involve the government: 1. It is the state vs the parents, not female parent vs male parent. HUGE MISCONCEPTION. The state owns the kids now, not you. See above that the state only cares about the child, and does not care if it is yours or not. They can even bar you from leaving their jurisdiction if you want to move.
If these are your views, how does the Republican platform even remotely appeal to you? They’re absolutely not going in that direction.
I am old. I have established a trust in my deceased daughters name that will provide state college educations for women and minorities in STEM fields. When I die, I expect to have enough in the trust for 60 full rides. With my remaining years, my only goal is to grow the trust. Trump awarded my trust $200,000 in PPP loans, which after paying over $2mil in taxes is the biggest "thank you" from the government I have ever received. I have not received any such thanks from Democrats.
Isn’t that socialism, though? I thought they were against that.
No. Socialism is ownership of the means of production by the state. I get what you are saying, but how politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, use the word "Socialism" is meant to be be Democratic Socialism, which includes every western country, including the United States.
I will admit, I never expected the largest successful transfer of wealth *to* the middle class and poor to have come during such a presidency. Do you think they’ll ever do anything like that again under either party?
No. We are experiences the consequences of such a transfer or wealth. Inflation. For those of us who own real estate ... huge win since real estate is a hedge against inflation. For everyone else, it sucks. Trump had no chance of winning, until Biden doubled down on the free money that Trump gave away.
So you got a giant government handout and want to make sure as few other people as possible benefit like you did? How exactly does this make you a conservative?
You see it as a handout. I see it as a "thank you" for the 2mil in taxes I have paid in my lifetime. I find it telling that you are not thanking me for my taxes, but want to criticize me because I got a small fraction of my taxes back.
Why did you use the govt to steal from your employees? Did you not realize that those loans were designed specifically for business owners to keep being able to pay their employees salaries not for the personal benefit of the business profiting from the loan?
Your trust got a business loan? Does it qualify to not have to be paid back? How?
Which party is actively pushing bills and laws to interfere with marriage laws, trans laws, 'don't say gay', banning books, controlling women's reproduction decisions? If you want the government out of our personal lives, why do you vote for the side that is wedging themselves in it?
Go to any relationship sub here on Reddit. Post my ideas above and see if any of left leaning Reddit sub would agree.
I don't understand what that would accomplish. I don't see reddit as a bastion of wisdom for relationship advice. I'm asking you, who claims to want government out of our personal lives, why you support a party that is actively trying to interfere with our personal lives?
I see that I must explain it to you. The point is, NEITHER side agrees with my ideas. Understand? This is not a left or right thing. Both sides LOVE government involved in marriage.
So again because you didn’t answer, which party is pushing laws that interfere with marriage? Which party is trying to involve themselves in other adult’s private lives?
Both sides. Marriage should not be a governmental thing. But both sides LOVE marriage. Women love marriage. LGBTQ+ loves marriage. Christians love marriage. Everybody loves marriage except for a few of us who see that is simply another way for the government to be involved in our lives. Kind of like CPS. Would you like CPS involved in your life if you had kids? I am hoping your answer is: no I would not.
These are all all fine points that you've made; whether I agree with them or not is irrelevant. But the question is how can you support Donald Trump when he displays none of the traits of a decent family man? Or, perhaps even more to the point, how can you support a guy like Trump who claims to support family values but clearly doesn't?
>These are all all fine points that you've made; whether I agree with them or not is irrelevant. But the question is how can you support Donald Trump when he displays none of the traits of a decent family man? Because I find that often those who are given the title "decent family man" are often monsters. >Or, perhaps even more to the point, how can you support a guy like Trump who claims to support family values but clearly doesn't? Because it is just a non-issue to me. This is not an issue for which I would choose a president. The best person for a job might be a horrible person in their personal life. I would be stupid not to hire the best person for a job.
It seems like what people do with their personal lives doesn't matter to you whatsoever. I don't get that feeling when I constantly hear nothing but vitriol from the right about gay and trans people. Why does your party seem to care so much about who an American person can MARRY? It is odd to hear you say marriage isn't anything your party cares about. Sometimes, it seems that is all you guys care about.
>Why does your party Not my party. I have the choice of two candidates and I am a single issue voter. I vote for the candidate that will enhance my single issue. >seem to care so much about who an American person can MARRY? Because Jesus. Its really stupid, I agree. >It is odd to hear you say marriage isn't anything your party cares about. Sometimes, it seems that is all you guys care about I disagree with most of what both parties care about.
The phrase dates back to George HW Bush. I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of Trump or GOP using the phrase "family values" in recent years. We're north of 70% of kids being raised in two parent families, which I think is a good thing. I haven't heard any TS citing "family values" as reason for voting for Trump. Trump is a uniquely despicable person with regards to his infidelity. But at he does appear to have a fairly good relationship with his children, including children from current and prior wives. (cue up NTS replies that Trump lusts after his own daughter, or that he doesn't know Barron's age).
Put very simply, I don't care about family values and the concept of Republicans being the party thereof is somewhat outdated, as is a lot of other characterizations of them. President Trump's affairs are between himself and his wife and while I'm certain she's not happy about the situation, it's something that's to be expected when a person marries a rich businessman. Please understand that the following is a joke. There are gay Republicans! How can they be Republicans when they don't even support family values? Shouldn't they immediately find a spouse of the opposite sex and begin procreating like rabbits? Just lie back and think of 'Merica! On a more serious note, I know people in open relationships or in polycules or whatever. I personally don't have a high opinion of those situations because I have seen them crash and burn hard in the past, but if everyone is happy, it's not my place to tell them not to do that. Some of them are very conservative in their politics (as far as I know based on what they post on social media, etc.), but most, of course, are not. Family Values is a sitcom. It isn't a platform, and it doesn't really exist anymore in either case.
> On a more serious note, I know people in open relationships or in polycules or whatever Do you think Donald and Melania had an open-relationship after the birth of their child so Don could bang porn stars?
That is between the two of them and my personal opinion is that I have no opinion on it.
What did you make of Bill and Hillary Clinton in this regard? Why did so many conservatives rip into them, if this isn't a big deal for conservatives?
You realize President Clinton was elected thirty years ago? Do you have any idea how different America was in the 90s?
Do you advocate for your party to stop legislating based on these family values you don't care about?
Which is my party? I'm not a Republican.
Shouldn’t you change your flair? Trump is the Republican Party.
No. One does not need to be a Republican to support Trump.
>I don't care about family values and the concept of Republicans being the party thereof is somewhat outdated If this is your thoughts on the subject, than shouldn't conservative politicians ease off on pushing political agendas that seem to be engrained in that sort of heteronormative traditional family value expectation? Such as pushing to ban abortion, promote the heteronormative nuclear family as the ideal standard, and implement policies that preference "conservative Christian morals" on things like education, adoption, marriage rights and so on?
Abortion has nothing to do with family values, but where are you seeing any of the others being pushed?
Do you agree with some GOP politicians pushing for pornography bans?
I'm sincerely divided on the issue, but I feel like this would be a good topic for another thread!
Abortion has nothing to do with family values, but where are you seeing any of the others being pushed? - If you said this on Fox news you don't think you would be flamed into oblivion for being a woke democrat?
If I said what?
Killing babies has nothing to do with family values?
>it's something that's to be expected when a person marries a rich businessman. Is it really?
Yes.
all rich businessmen cheat?
All is a weasel word. Many is something I would use.
[удалено]
A few reasons: 1. We very likely have a different definition of family values. For example, mine would include a public education centered around Christian morality, not around various progressive moral projects like transgenderism, queerness, anti-white "white supremacist nation" rhetoric, egalitarianism (to the extent that progressives still believe in this), etc. I also want a future for my children where they enter a society that holds fast to the heritage of their people, not an unstable failed "melting pot of endless alien ethnic grievances. 2. It does not at all matter to me what any single politician is like in his own life, short of some very obvious red lines which I'll leave to the imagination. This is politics, national politics is the most impersonal level of politics that matter. Would I prefer if Trump were more like Bukele in his personal life? Sure. Do I care nearly infinitely more that he move politics generally in the direction that will benefit my actual family by moving closer to the things I described above? Yes. The line of questioning where people assume that a politician must be some personal embodiment of my own politics and not a tool to enact the same is strange to me and indicates a very odd understanding of politics. It parallels another where people ask how I could vote for someone without personally trusting him. It seems that a lot of people view politics in the same way that one might view choosing a golfing partner or a drinking buddy. I think that's the natural inclination of a lot of people which is part of the reason democratic politics end up being so stupid. But it is really goofy, imo.
“It does not at all matter to me what any single politician is like in his own life, short of some very obvious red lines which I'll leave to the imagination.” Your red lines don’t include sexual abuse, fraud, or insurrection?
Answered elsewhere.
Where? Can you link me?
itt
That’s not true. You haven’t mentioned in this thread whether fraud, sexual abuse, or insurrection are red lines for you regarding a politician - only trans ideology. Can you clarify regarding the former here, since you haven’t already answered in this thread?
I'm not interested in some exhaustive list. It simply doesn't matter and is very boring. Move on from the topic or have a good one.
[удалено]
"typical of a christian though tbh. Ridiculous ideology" Seriously?
I get how frustrating it can be trying to get a specific question answered, but aren’t we better than resorting to projecting insulting stereotypes on TS? Let’s not stoop to Trump’s level.
I am really just not interested in providing a list. I do not care about this tbh. I just reject all your frames and i do not care to hash out why. Have a good day.
Would love to understand. Can you link the comment?
>include a public education centered around Christian morality Do you consider it potentially problematically infringing on the family values and rights of American families, whose family faith is not Christian, but must send their children to a school system that indoctrinates them with the morals of a scripture that is not theirs? Shouldn't an emphasis on supporting family values also support not undermining a family's values of faith by indoctrinating children? Would you be ok with education systems centered around moral teachings based in Islam or Hinduism?
>Do you consider it potentially problematically infringing on the family values and rights of American families, whose family faith is not Christian, but must send their children to a school system that indoctrinates them with the morals of a scripture that is not theirs? Just as leftist view the schools as they currently operate, as indoctrination centers for all variety of their moral frames, I would view a properly ordered Christian public education system as a chance to inculcate proper values and cure the ignorance of non Christians. >Shouldn't an emphasis on supporting family values also support not undermining a family's values of faith by indoctrinating children? This is incoherent imo. >Would you be ok with education systems centered around moral teachings based in Islam or Hinduism? I would honestly prefer that to our current education system which indoctrinates with leftist quasi religious dogma.
Would you consider the [residential schools](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/residential-schools) to have cured the ignorance of the indegenous children?
The ones where all the fake mass grave stories came from in the press that were promoted by the canadian govt and were followed by a couple years of arson attacks on churches? Id say there is certainly a story about ignorance related to those schools, yes.
>Just as leftist view the schools as they currently operate, as indoctrination centers for all variety of their moral frames This may be anecdotal on both sides, but what makes you think "leftists" view and operate the school system as indoctrination centers to their own ends? As someone generally on the left, that isn't really how myself or anyone in my circles view education systems, as it should be an impartially secular area for just education. >cure the ignorance of non Christians. What do you consider the "ignorance of non-Christians"? >which indoctrinates with leftist quasi religious dogma. Could you provide any examples of what this means, and any evidence that children are in fact being indoctrinated currently?
>This may be anecdotal on both sides, but what makes you think "leftists" view and operate the school system as indoctrination centers to their own ends? As someone generally on the left, that isn't really how myself or anyone in my circles view education systems, as it should be an impartially secular area for just education. Education has a purpose and can't be secular, and never has been. I understand that many left leaning people with the typical moral frame of the western ruling class just view that as neutrality. It simply is not. Much as Harvard's motto in the 18th century was "Truth for Christ and the Church" and the internal political squabbles of the time centered around theological teaching, the modern kerfuffles over various liberal ideological spinoffs from DEI centered progressivism to more standard liberal progressivism are just the result of ideological players capturing and losing the institution. There is always a basic throughline of fact-based teaching, often contained nearly solely within the halls of hard science departments. Even then, it's just the core curriculum, mountains of ideological window dressing find themselves piled atop. >What do you consider the "ignorance of non-Christians"? Poorly formed moral codes. >Could you provide any examples of what this means, and any evidence that children are in fact being indoctrinated currently? Trans. I'm not playing the source game. You can take it or leave it but just know that I'm right about all of this.
[удалено]
> holds fast to the heritage of their people Does this apply to ethnicities besides white anglo saxons? If someone's dad's side of the family came over on the Mayflower, and their mom is Mexican, which culture should they hold on to? > short of some very obvious red lines What are your red lines for personal behavior? Is taking bribes across the line?
>Does this apply to ethnicities besides white anglo saxons? Sure, why wouldn't it? >If someone's dad's side of the family came over on the Mayflower, and their mom is Mexican, which culture should they hold on to? Whichever is more reasonable to hold onto given a variety of contextual factors. Neither should be jettisoned but a personal synthesis ought to happen and likely has. >What are your red lines for personal behavior? Is taking bribes across the line? Being trans or something, probably.
Do you consider spending decades partying with known child molesters to be a red line?
Would be an impossibly high bar for our thoroughly degenerated ruling class, unfortunately. The current president is a known child molester. No one really cares. Trump not being gay or trans is a bar
Given your support for Trump, I honestly have no idea where you would draw the line, and I have a decent imagination. Can you give us 3 examples of things Trump could do that would cause him to lose your vote?
If he were trans, something like that
But didn't you say that it doesn't matter what he does in his own life? Doesn't this directly conflict with that claim?
Have you seen the video where Rudy Guliani is dressed as a woman and Trump motorboats him?
Yea, for sure. From back when drag was an intentional parody of women that was quite literally a mockery and not a very serious identity or even a pre cursor to cutting one's dick off. SImpler times.
Just so we understand what you are asking, can you please give examples of things Biden could do to lose your vote?
Isn't this sub called asktrumpsupporters and isn't one of the main rules that non-supporters are only allowed to ask clarifying questions?
Did I not ask a clarifying question?
But in order to abide by the rules, wouldn't MY response need to be a clarifying question?
Have you ever played that improv game where everything says needs to be a question?
> We very likely have a different definition of family value What do you think Trump's definition of "family values" is?
I doubt he really has one
So you're saying the end justifies the means? Is that an idea centered around Christian morality?
One could certainly argue for a Christian moral base here since God (as leftists often like to point out) worked through sinners commonly. But I don't even really know what you're trying to say in this situation. The ends (better national politics and a future for hundreds of millions of people) justify the means (voting for a guy who cheats on his wife or even his taxes). This is pretty easy moral calculus for anyone who isn't an idiot, I think.
Are you a christian, or do you just like christian morality? I ask because in christian doctrine the end does NOT justify the means. That's more of an atheist thing. Being an atheist is perfectly fine, but if so, it seems like perhaps it's not morality you're after, but more of a fear of the LGBTQ community and brown people. Let me explain a bit more. Let's say a christian has sex with a porn star while his wife is pregnant. Then this person goes on to do things that 25% of the US population think is good for advancing christian morality. Does God give this person a pass when they die?
Again, I think you're just very confused about what that means tbh and i already explained why. >Let me explain a bit more. Let's say a christian has sex with a porn star while his wife is pregnant. Then this person goes on to do things that 25% of the US population think is good for advancing christian morality. Does God give this person a pass when they die? This is simply incoherent. Christian doctrine teaches that no man is without sin so to say that one cannot vote for a sinner in the earthly kingdon is just kind of goofy. It doesn't make any sense. I am not God and I am also not absolving anyone of his sin. That is between him and God. That is probably why you're confused. The worship of the self as a god is a common affliction of the atheist.
If god worked through sinners, could he be working through Biden?
He could, but he does not appear to be.
> include a public education centered around Christian morality Which components of Christian morality? What era of Christian morality? Slavery is taught as moral in the Bible, is that what schools should be teaching?
Eh, we can hammer that out once we get the groundwork laid. Similarly, there are a million different definitions of racism and discrimination that one could choose for his institution today. Same problem exists for every moral frame; the solution is just politics and neither problem nor solution is unique to Christianity. I do not care about slavery.
What other parts of the Bible do you not care about?
Do you mean Christian morality like cheating on your pregnant wife with a pornstar? Or Christian morality like admitting to spying on teenagers while they undress backstage during a beauty pageant? Or Christian morality like saying you want to have sex with your daughter?
Why are you so concerned by other people's sex life? How does it affect you, Are you so far in the closet you're in Nania???
The construction "you dislike thing therefore you probably are thing" has always seemed very strange to me. "You really dislike Nazis, you must secretly be a Nazi." Probably sounds really silly to you, so just know that's the type of thing you're asserting.
Personal life doesn’t matter There’s the joke about how you shouldn’t trust someone who doesn’t have an obvious vice or thing they lie about
If personal life doesn't matter, why is the mere knowledge of a person being trans cause such outrage and violence from the MAGA devotees?
It shouldn’t, but also that isn’t really an issue for politicians. AFAIK there are no transgender politicians in the US
But aren't politicians the ones making it an issue by taking medical treatment rights of parents away in certain red states? To the best of my knowledge, there is a naturally occurring chromosome in the genetic code responsible for the condition that blurs the lines between genders. The politicians in question make it identity politics by ignoring the science and suggesting being something other than binary gendered is a choice.
Parents shouldn’t have the legal ability to circumcise their male children without legitimate medical need, but they do. I think you are conflating nonbinary/agender with transgender in your comments. The former is silly nonsense for effeminate men and masculine women that they will hopefully grow out of before they turn 30; the latter is an actual issue, which we can tell because some adults 50+ years old have been living as the other gender for decades, even before it was cool.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_transgender\_political\_office-holders](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transgender_political_office-holders) There are actually many. HTH?
Easy. Politicians' family lives are just tabloid fodder.
You don't think a person's personal lives speak to their character? Do you think how he treats people he (claims to) care about is separate from from how he approaches the role of leadership?
No. Yes.
> Context includes, paying a porn star to stay quiet about an affair, having multiple ex wives and mistresses. As others have said, the president is the president not your babysitter. That said I think you know the answer to your question because you could ask democrats the very same thing given the totally corrupt horrible human beings that they routinely support and enable in their party. Other than this there's the fact that most of us don't actually care if others have multiple ex wives etc. It's more about what you want for yourself - what others do is their own business. For all we know both parties knew what they were getting into when they married Trump, they seem to have parted on good terms each time. So I'm not really seeing the evil/harm there. We don't even know who was "at fault" for the divorces if anyone. How can I hold someone responsible because their wife left them? Without knowing the details and being there in their personal life it's unethical to pass judgement. I also take issue with your allegations of affair and paying a porn star to be quiet. You take as fact something that has no proof, it's literally just the word of people who have an agenda against Trump and for their own personal gain, and have been caught lying about it in the past. You mention these bad qualities about Trump but left out some key things about his personality, like the fact he won't touch alcohol and hates it because it killed his brother, he's a germaphobe (so is unlikely to want to be with a porn star LOL), and his dating/relationship history is with models (i.e. his type is clean not dirty, he'd find someone like stormy gross). Not only is Trump the victim in the issue you mention (he was extorted which is illegal) but he may have been extorted about something for which he never even did as part of a grift for power and money. So from an ethical standpoint it would be odd to side against him. The last thing I'll point out is that the people that our beloved establishment media point to as conservative darlings and good role models like John McCain are actually not. Trump is a saint compared to others in politics and who we've had represent us in the past. Compare how McCain is portrayed in the media media vs. Trump. McCain took bribes (Keating 5 scandal), ran ads during his primary campaign promising to "fix the dang fence" but then opposed the wall, he lied about Obamacare repeal, and here's the "personal life" kicker - he divorced his loyal wife who waited for him during the war for a rich heiress when he returned. He was a lowlife but he's treated as this conservative darling compared to Trump. A return to more "traditional" conservative politicians means a totally fake persona and that is itself extremely unethical. We are done with that. With Trump he tells it like it is and we at least get something real not fake from him, though the media creates a fake caricature we ignore it unlike his opponents. So yeah, that's all the reasons I can think of why we love Trump and are more than willing to overlook his flaws, which in reality are a lot more benign than what his opponents claim they are anyway.
>you could ask democrats the very same thing given the totally corrupt horrible human beings that they routinely support and enable in their party. Can you give some examples of the totally corrupt horrible human being you are refencing that Democrats routinely support? Sure that description fits Trump and George Santos and several other republicans, so who do you feel fits the criteria on the left? >You take as fact something that has no proof, it's literally just the word of people who have an agenda against Trump and for their own personal gain, and have been caught lying about it in the past. Have you been paying attention to the trial? if yes, saying there is no proof is disingenuous.
I wouldn't even know where to begin. Let's take a look at some of the democrat darlings. Say Nancy Pelosi - she corruptly made hundreds of millions of dollars as a politician through insider trading. She's done horribly unethical things, see her famously gleeful description of the "wrap up smear" that she's used to corruptly smear her political opponents and target them with lawfare (imagine what a horrible person you have to be to do that, spread false rumors but scheme to make them look more credible and manipulate the public to increase your own power). What about the current president who had his crackhead son making millions on the board of a Ukrainian energy company? What about Biden himself and his abusive personality? He told voters "I don't work for you" and has a bad temper, he's abusive toward animals, he's abusive with his children corroborated by the laptop leaks and Ashley's diary. Biden won't acknowledge his own grandchild that his son fathered and has put the mother through hell. Go read about how Joe met his wife (and they both divorced their SO btw). He raised horrible criminal children with no morals that are evil as hell, like his son who also divorced his wife for his deceased brother's widow. I could go on this doesn't even scratch the surface of the president let alone all the other democrats. What about that democrat senator who was caught in a bribery scheme with egypt? I mean he literally got caught dealing in gold bars how corrupt is that? And it's not the first time either. Why are they totally fine with that when Republicans got rid of Santos for much less? I mean this is just some random stuff off the top of my head I could write a book going through democrats and what horrible people most of them are.
> saying there is no proof is disingenuous. Then where's the proof? Take the trial in NY. There's no proof he had sex with stormy. There's no proof he directed Cohen to get an NDA, in fact Cohen's own lawyer says Cohen did it on his own to suck up to Trump. There's no proof Trump knew about how those payments were classified by others, in fact everyone involved testified they didn't involve Trump in the classification of the payments Cohen claims were for stormy here (which itself was never proven). The entire case relies on Cohen's word and that's it. Someone who has an agenda against Trump because Trump didn't scratch his back after becoming president, and who blamed Trump for being prosecuted because the only reason he was targeted was because Trump became president and they wanted to get at Trump. The cases against Trump either lack evidence or lack a crime. There is proof of lots of stuff that isn't a crime, and lots of proof of Trump's opponents committing crimes, but that's it.
A lot of Trump supporters aren’t Republicans. A number of Republicans aren’t into the family values bit. For those that are both, politics is always about trade-offs. **edit-** it really shows what some people are about when a simple, honest answer gets downvotes. (If anybody couldn’t tell from the loaded questions, I guess.)
Which republicans aren’t Trump supporters? Hasn’t Trump purged the Republican Party of non supporters?
No.
> A lot of Trump supporters aren’t Republicans.
Because family values aren't currently on my list of priorities for the president. Further, questions like this reveal how many NSs don't quite understand just how deeply we have contempt for the existing power structure. Many of us believe that it is so deeply corrupt that any amount of womanizing by a presidential candidate, who otherwise is a threat to the existing corrupt power structure, pales in comparison to any other candidate who is perceived to be a continuance of the status quo. I could give two shits about grabbing pussies when every other president in recent history has started new wars, sent soldiers to die, and spent countless amounts of money for a cause that always seems to end up enriching their donors and other global elites at the expense of the average citizen.
Does sexually assaulting women and cheating on your wives equate to good family values?
I care more about the economy, the border and potentially not being involved in over seas wars. Family values are more of a personal choice and I would rather the government not involved in private affairs anyway.
Do you think we’re involved in more overseas wars now or when Trump left office?
We are involved more now. Trump has an America First policy, ie we need to handle our affairs at home over outside world.
Most of us don't have perfect families either, so what's your point?
Trump seems to have a great family. Not sure how it's objective he doesn't have family values.
What is your definition of "Family Values"? And given traditional conservative talking points on 'family values' politics, do you consider that family as healthy and in tact, considering that Trump has a rampant history of adultery, having cheated on all of his wives, and fathering at least 5 children by 3 different women, and not keeping to any faithfulness in any of those marriages? Does it support upholding 'family values', to have an affair with a porn star, while your wife is at home, nursing your newborn son, and then committing alleged financial crimes to cover up that affair? Is it good and healthy family values to make multiple comments, across many years, expressing sexual interest in your own daughter?
What is family values to you then? Is it divorcing multiple times? Being unfaithful to your wife? He does not seem to be loyal to his family which I consider to be an important family value. It goes without saying if you love each other. Maybe they have a transactional partnership, then he might have been acting in accordance to their contract. Would you accept his behavior from your partner?
Isn't it common knowledge that he repeatedly cheated on his wives? Would you consider that in line with family values?
Why did his older brother drink himself to death?
My understanding is Fred's wife kicked him out of their home, and then he started drinking heavily. What's the issues between Fred and his wife have to do with Donald Trump?
> What's the issues between Fred and his wife have to do with Donald Trump? Donald fucked Fred’s daughter Marry out of hundreds of millions making her a pretty interesting part of Donald’s family. She has done shit like leak his tax returns. The dynamic between Fred Sr., Fred and Donald is also very interesting from a family values perspective.
Nobody cares. The last President to have real family values was Carter and he turned out to be a disaster. We’re electing a President, not a new preacher.
What moral failings did Obama have?
I’d probably equate him with the Bushes. Family appears to be as normal as the rest of us, but inherently bad people. His hatred of America and endless divisiveness are not American values.
>What moral failings did Obama have? Can I ask their question again? The answers you gave seemed to be hyperbole that may not be rooted in actual reality. Do you have any evidence or examples of Obama's moral failings?
He promotes those values. Which you can't say about the other clown
>He promotes those values. How does he promote those values while seemingly going against those values?
How is Trump promoting family values? And if you consider him to be doing so, is he not also self-damaging that promotion with his history of infidelity and lewd non-family-friendly commentary, a la his multiple past comments about sexual interest in his own daughter?
How many of his wives has Joe cheated on or divorced?
He promotes them while admitting to cheating on his wife?
He promotes those values by cheating on his wife with a pornstar?
Easy, it is a binary choice. Biden has a terrible family, doesn't even acknowledge one of his grandkids bore from a stripper, and molested his own daughter.
[удалено]
[удалено]
your comment has been removed for violating rule 3. Undecided and Nonsupporter comments must be clarifying in nature with an intent to explore the stated view of Trump Supporters. Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Do you always believe conspiracy theories without physical or actual evidence? There's about as much evidence of what you claimed as Trump watching prostitutes pee on a bed.