Countries typically have policies and procedures that transcend party lines. It's simply a myth that in a democracy government day-to-day operations would differ so much depending on what party is in power. — ssu

Interesting point. In recent years Congress has become weaker and the presidency more autocratic. You may recall a certain recent Democratic president who boasted that he'd govern with a "pen and a phone." Remember when Obama said that? It's the same deal. I for one would love to see Congress step up to its responsibilities. You know if the Dems really wanted to abolish ICE or open the borders they'd pass a law to do so. Far easier to criticize Trump for enforcing the very laws Dems implemented, and putting kids in the very same cages Obama built.

Please don't misunderstand me. I don't support Trump's border policies. I didn't support Obama's. Obama deported far more people than Trump. I'm simply appalled at the massive hypocrisy of the left. Is Trump an autocrat? Yes. Was Obama? Yes. Do Congresspersons like to give speeches but are often nowhere to be found when it comes to passing bills? Yes. Imperial presidency, weak Congress. The historians are already writing about it, it's been decades in the making.

Am I taking your point correctly? I agree that the US should be governed by laws, not autocrats. Congress should step up. We're constantly at war but haven't declared war since the day after Pearl Harbor. That's where it starts. Congress won't do its job so presidents rule by fiat. Signing statements, executive orders and the like.

I understand what you're saying. Trump played his part by not filling vacancies for judges at the border, and then Honduras went into crisis.

And then with the ling history of the US absorbing Latin America into itself. Not much of this is about racism. — frank

Well it's definitely about the racism of the US against our neighbors to the south. Very long history. Wars fought. Not the thread to get into it. I think there's always been racism involved in US policy towards Mexico and central America.

Well it's definitely about the racism of the US against our neighbors to the south. — fishfry

So you're saying Trump is racist. And you voted for him.

Please don't misunderstand me. I don't support Trump's border policies. I didn't support Obama's. Obama deported far more people than Trump. I'm simply appalled at the massive hypocrisy of the left. Is Trump an autocrat? Yes. Was Obama? It's the same deal. - Am I taking your point correctly? — fishfry

To notice here the similarities is very helpful. Just as was with the War on Terror lead by Bush and then continued by Obama...with increasing the drones all around the Muslim countries with even underaged American citizens killed in the process. The fact that somehow the criticism died totally down after Obama was elected even if the actual WoT strategy of Bush was continued and GITMO stayed open was for me a moment of awakening on how deep the partisanship goes and how irrelevant the reality is to the supporters of either party.

Of course there is political leadership and then the vast bureaucracy and organization carrying on with it's own weight. But in the US, the situation is even more special. Both parties have to desparately show just how different they are from the other. In the end you are talking about a centrist party and a right-wing party.

You see, there is a symbiotic relationship with the Democratic and the Republic party have. They have absolutely no competition for power in the US. They dominate totally the political scene and share power with 4 or 8 year intervals. Even to talk about primary elections anywhere else would be totally strange. Only policy wanks follow how political parties choose their candidates. It ought to be a side event. Not so in the US. And in order to eradicate any chance of a third party surfacing, which could happen, the two parties sharing the spoils are as vitriolic and hostile to each other as they can be. And voters fall for it. Hence the toxic discord in the political discourse.

Well, one way to think about philosophical debate is the way some people, especially men, approach these issues: it's just about the matter in hand in the discussion, the issue at stake, nothing else. One doesn't approach the discussion as social interaction between other people at all. After all, extremely few people here actually know the people here (apart from the mods and admins) and even fewer have met each other, at large we are anonymous to each other. Thus if you upset someone or look foolish in some discussion, it doesn't matter. In fact there are so few of us that if one would by accident stumble to another that participates here in the discussion, the meeting would be very likely a happy event (what would be the odds) even if in the forum the persons are bitter rivals. The cordiality is only defined by the rules of the forum, which are simple. The worst thing what can happen is that the Forum NKVD can take you to the virtual forest and use the ban gun on your head. Afterwards, no more PF for you. Some haven't cared much about that either. — ssu

True, but one thing that women understand very well [traditional gender roles disclaimer] is that men often play out the social aspects of debate, without realizing it.

But let me disentangle this difference from both sex and gender, because I do think carving it along traditional lines is often inapt. (If you think I'm just virtue signalling, keep Nietzsche in mind)

& to do that, let me, further, set up a dichotomy that has traditionally been broken along gender lines. Content vs form, argument versus delivery. It's easier to imagine outside of a pure-language venue like the forums. So : people arguing in a bar. You can imagine an argument at a bar -for sake of argument, let's imagine these are savvy arguers, making good points and counterpoints - being recorded and transcribed. The transcription would look like two people focused on a central idea and arguing around it. What would be left out is the body language, the exchange of glances, the reflexive raising of hands, the modulations in tone. Why someone chooses to take a bathroom break here, and the other person makes a joke there.

Anyone can, theoretically, take either perspective on the conversation - transcript vs social-physical drama -this is why it's not simply a gender thing. But the interesting aspect, to my mind, is that someone within the conversation, can be in a 'transcript' state of mind, while nevertheless participating in the physical aspect. (on a forum, the 'physical' aspect cashes out more as tone, posture, choice of references, intellectual positioning, moral maneuvering)

It never hurts to imagine a conversation you're in as being depicted as a dispute between characters in a novel. You don't want to err too much on that side, because argumentation does have an independent logic of its own, but you never want to forget that you're never in pure argumentation. Especially when it comes to politics.

In terms of the worst thing that can happen on the forums: My dream is to be ban-gunned on a mild winter day, in a picturesque copse, with snow softly falling, dogs barking in the distance.

What would be left out is the body language, the exchange of glances, the reflexive raising of hands, the modulations in tone. — csalisbury

And let's start with things like how we react to people's age and appearance, when we approach each other before anything is discussed. If you have 20 something students and then people of the age of their parents, it changes how the people behave. Just as if the people are all male, all female or mixed. In the case of this Forum, if people here would physically meet to discuss philosophy, those who are professional academics would instantly be usually given more time and they likely wouldn't be as casual about the debate. The amateurs curious about Philosophy likely wouldn't start insisting that the assistant professor of mathematical logic is totally wrong about his or her field...and they are right. But here with anonymity, that can easily happen.

An anonymous discussion site is totally different.

I'll give a short anecdote about this, I remember once talking on this Forum (or likely it was the predecessor of this) about John Horgan's book the End of Science when the author, John Horgan, actually joined the discussion. As I had read the book, I did notice that new site member knew the book (naturally). I knew that Horgan was a science journalist, so the idea of a science journalist first googling what is talked about his books and then participating in a discussion about one of his book wasn't at all far fetched to me. Unfortunately the other PF member debating me didn't think that an author would drop in a conversation of his book in a measly site like PF and accused him to be a phony and 'sent him to hell', which naturally ended the discussion.

Taking this discussion back to the topic of the thread, similar divide is happening with political debate. You have the social media, the internet, where people behave one way and then there is the actual physical World where they interact quite differently. In fact I guess this question of being either a Trump supporter or not (or Trump supporters being deplorables) are those questions that Americans likely don't start a casual conversation.

Or just think yourself walking in Maine to a total stranger and asking out of the blue: "What do you think about Donald Trump?". The body language, the exchange of glances, the reflexive raising of hands, the modulations in tone…all that would be quite interesting.

So you're saying Trump is racist. And you voted for him. — frank

Playing the old "so you're saying that ..." game. A low form of argument practiced by people who think "gotcha" is clever.

Trump often says things I wish he wouldn't say. But in fact he got rid of NAFTA and implemented USMCA (still awaiting Congressional approval) which keeps the good parts of NAFTA and fixes the bad parts. So I would say that Trump has a nuanced and productive understanding of US-Mexican trade issues.

I will add that I vote in California, so that I could vote for Hillary or for Trump or for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or Bozo the Clown and my vote would not matter. That gives me the liberty of casting protest votes in presidential elections with no downside. California goes for the Dem regardless of who I vote for.

California goes for the Dem regardless of who I vote for. — fishfry

Until it doesn't.

You see, the two ruling parties that are in symbiosis can rule only so long that people think they "waste their votes if they don't vote for one or the other".

Until it doesn't.

You see, the two ruling parties that are in symbiosis can rule only so long that people think they "waste their votes if they don't vote for one or the other". — ssu

If California were in play in a presidential election I wouldn't cast a protest vote. And I would burn in the fiery pits of hell before I'd ever vote for Hillary Clinton. It was the DNC that rigged their own process to nominate a corrupt warmonger so incompetent at politics that she managed to lose to Trump by failing to lock down the rust belt states.

I would burn in the fiery pits of hell before I'd ever vote for Hillary Clinton. It was the DNC that rigged their own process to nominate a corrupt warmonger so incompetent at politics that she managed to lose to Trump by failing to lock down the rust belt states. — fishfry

I guess then people think you wear a MAGA hat. :wink:

Playing the old "so you're saying that ..." game. A low form of argument practiced by people who think "gotcha" is clever. — fishfry

If I didnt have a low form of argument I wouldn't have any argument at all.

But I'm the opposite of you. I've ended up liking some of the Trump-effect, but the fact that he won't take a clear stand against racism means I can't vote for him. That shit matters.

I guess then people think you wear a MAGA hat. :wink: — ssu

Never did, never would.

I have this explanation for my politics:

Hillary was 100% correct when she said that half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables. Racist, misogynistic, homophobic, Islamaphobic, xenophobic. It's a fact, I totally agree. About 30% of the American electorate falls into that category.

Now what the Dems and the left have NEVER been willing to ask themselves is: Who are the half of Trump supporters who are NOT in that basket of deplorables? Who are the lifelong social liberals, lifelong registered Democrats, who can no longer support what the Democratic party and the left have become?

I put myself firmly in that category. I stand for peace. The left now supports war. I stand for free speech. The left now stands for no-platforming and spitting in the face (literally, if you caught that news last week) of anyone who dares to disagree with them. I stand opposed to the illiberal, corrupt, warmongering left and the Democratic party they've taken over.

Ask yourself: If half of Trump's supporters are deplorable, who are the other half? The Dems won't ask themselves that question because to ask the question requires looking in the mirror at what they've become.

I could go on. Just to take one demographic example, millions of African-Americans who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 didn't bother to turn out for Hillary? Why is that? Did they suddenly turn racist? Or could it be that they know that Hillary and Bill (and Biden) were behind the punitive crime bill of the 90's that destroyed the black community? And that Hillary and Bill (and Biden) were behind the punitive bankruptcy bill of the same era? Or that Hillary called young black men "super predators who should be brought to heel."

Brought to heel. Like dogs. Hillary said that. Do you need me to provide the clip? Ok.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/22/trump_tweets_video_of_hillary_clinton_referring_to_blacks_as_super-predators.html

You think black people don't know those things? The votes show otherwise. Blacks who supported Obama didn't turn out for Hillary. One of the factors that cost her the election. Even law-abiding blacks who hate gangbangers will have a negative reaction to that kind of rhetoric from a privileged white woman.

So is the country really racist for electing Trump? Or did a lot of blacks reject Hillary's implicit racism? Another question the Dems won't ask themselves.

Who are all the people who would never dream of wearing a MAGA hat yet can no longer support what's become of the Democrats? That's the question to ask if you seek to lead and unify the country.

the fact that he won't take a clear stand against racism — frank

I don't agree with that claim. During the 2016 campaign he went to the NAACP meeting and asked for their votes. "What have you got to lose?" he asked. He has a way of getting at the heart of the matter. Millions of blacks and Hispanics are doing much better in Trump's economy than they did in Obama's. You think they don't know that? He doesn't have to win all the ethnic minorities. He just has to peel enough of them away from the Dems. He did that in 2916 and he'll do that again in 2020. The Dems are no longer connected to reality.

He did that in 2016 and he'll do that again in 2020. — fishfry

I'm cool with that.

Never did, never would. — fishfry

Didn't think so at all, but looking at the present level of American politics, I guess many will put the MAGA hat on you. And soon silly season is here again!

(Well, I have to be happy that once in my life the presidential candidate I voted for got elected... and enjoys now in his second term a lot of support across the political isle.)

Ask yourself: If half of Trump's supporters are deplorable, who are the other half? The Dems won't ask themselves that question because to ask the question requires looking in the mirror at what they've become. — fishfry

It's a tragic error that the democrat party didn't do some soul searching after their ruinous election. I've always wondered who were the idiots that thought it was "now Hillary's time". The popularity of Bernie Sanders (and Trump, actually) ought to have told something was up. But old people seldom see when changes happen.

Who are all the people who would never dream of wearing a MAGA hat yet can no longer support what's become of the Democrats? That's the question to ask if you seek to lead and unify the country. — fishfry

Nobody's thinking of unifying the country. And if the two parties alienate people from the whole process, then their core supporters just become even more important.

I have this explanation for my politics:

Hillary was 100% correct when she said that half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables. Racist, misogynistic, homophobic, Islamaphobic, xenophobic. It's a fact, I totally agree. About 30% of the American electorate falls into that category.

Now what the Dems and the left have NEVER been willing to ask themselves is: Who are the half of Trump supporters who are NOT in that basket of deplorables? Who are the lifelong social liberals, lifelong registered Democrats, who can no longer support what the Democratic party and the left have become?

I put myself firmly in that category. I stand for peace. The left now supports war. I stand for free speech. The left now stands for no-platforming and spitting in the face (literally, if you caught that news last week) of anyone who dares to disagree with them. I stand opposed to the illiberal, corrupt, warmongering left and the Democratic party they've taken over.

Ask yourself: If half of Trump's supporters are deplorable, who are the other half? The Dems won't ask themselves that question because to ask the question requires looking in the mirror at what they've become. — fishfry

I love how none of this explains your politics. Most teenagers today are more politically comprehensive than simply being anti-war and pro-free speech (although this would certainly explain many of your posts). You are just stomping on mud and pretending this forms a clearer image of what you stand for.

I'm cool with that. — frank

Thank you. I'm grateful for any understanding and agreement. About anything. But I have the title now. "Confessions of a non-deplorable Trump supporter." There's an essay in there around these ideas. Flesh out my idiosyncratic point of view. Get branded a racist for my troubles. Such is the state of public dialog in 2019. Not exactly what Plato had in mind.

Changing the subject, how about old She Who Must Not Be Indicted, or "She Who Etc" for short? She's running sure as the planets follow their spacetime geodesics around the sun. What do y'all liberals think about that? You cool with She Who Etc wrecking yet another election for you?

And now that you mention it: Go Tulsi!!!!!

Thank you. I'm grateful for any understanding and agreement. — fishfry

I know the feeling. :blush:

He doesn't have to win all the ethnic minorities. He just has to peel enough of them away from the Dems. He did that in 2916 and he'll do that again in 2020. The Dems are no longer connected to reality. — fishfry

Not sure that minorities helped him that much in 2016. I recall that only 1% of black women voted for him.

Speaking of a reality disconnect, Trump hasn’t been able to bring American manufacturing out of its recession, but this doesn’t seem to be a dealbreaker for his loyal supporters in the rust-belt. It should be.

4% of Black Americans think Trumps been good for them and 19% of Hispanic Americans think Trump has been good for them @fishfry is just making stuff up

Alot of the problems with the poor can be solved with sub blue laws and drastically reduced zoning laws. Sub blue laws through slightly complex paperwork allow the guy or girl who works 2 or 3 jobs to coordinate that she gets every 14th (or 21st and so on day off). The system isn't entirely simple but most laws aren't simple. I've met people who work 300 days in a row. To say having a 7th day off is too religious is acceptable but the whole point of the sabbath is based on the practical need for a person to have a consistent and set day off every x days off. 14 days is drastically different from 300 days. This would not impose on the tax payer. Drastically reduced zoning laws would be in accordance with a free market which is what the Libertarians (conservatives) want. Many Republicans are just globalists in disguise.

I recently met a woman whose husband and mother had died. She was sick and had to take care of her children so couldn't rest.

I asked her if she could attend a church to find a community to network with. She said she didnt have the extra time for that (she was working two jobs.)

Jeese. A day off would at least allow her to find a community.

Absolutely. God bless you sir! If it does any good i'll pray for that lady too.

If it does any good i'll pray for that lady too. — christian2017

I'm sure she would appreciate the sentiment. Her situation reveals the flaw in the Right's insistance that aid should be private.

based on what i currently know about the nature of money and currency, i'm not sure its wrong for the government to some how financially help the poor. The problem is those in society who are willing to get most violent due to the notion that the government is stealing from the tax payer, there might be other options. When i was in high school economics was taught that the more money changes hands the more money and products is produced over the long run. So basically if the government printed a little more money to provide slightly more government jobs, that would also have a slightly synergistic effect on the economy in terms of the amount goods, services and even money that is produced. Actually in my local area most people who actually have any real income are employed by the government. For the rest of us we mostly work in retail and food service.

4% of Black Americans think Trumps been good for them and 19% of Hispanic Americans think Trump has been good for them fishfry is just making stuff up — Maw

Black an Hispanic employment under Trump is way up. I'm not providing a link because I don't think a philosophy forum should be a link/counterlink battle as if we were on Craigslist or Reddit. Google around.

Trump doesn't have to get the entire minority vote. He only has to peel off a few votes form the traditional Dem majority among Blacks and Hispanics. And please remember a point I find myself repeating, that millions of black Obama voters in 2008 and 2012 didn't bother to go to the polls for Hillary. You could look that up too.

I do object to your statement that I'm making things up. That's a negative personal characterization and it's quite false. If there's one thing I do it's read and research obsessively across a wide spectrum of news and opinion. I never knowingly post anything that's untrue, if it's a matter of fact; or at least arguable, if it's opinion.

@Maw I've never personally attacked your integrity and I'd like the same respect from you.

The bottom line is whether this is to be a political conversation on a (relatively) high toned philosophy discussion forum; or whether it's just Craigslist or Twitter with pretensions.

Not sure that minorities helped him that much in 2016. I recall that only 1% of black women voted for him. — praxis

That's still perfectly consistent with my point. In every situation there is the seen and the unseen. We can SEE the percentage of blacks who came out to vote against him. We can NOT see the millions who simply stayed home because they couldn't pull the lever for Ms. Superpredators.

Political scientists did sift through the numbers, and it's clear that Obama's black turnout in his two elections was far higher than Hillary's in 2016.

Speaking of a reality disconnect, Trump hasn’t been able to bring American manufacturing out of its recession, but this doesn’t seem to be a dealbreaker for his loyal supporters in the rust-belt. It should be. — praxis

The heartland's hurting for sure. Would not be surprised if Liz peels off some of Trump's support with her talk of economic unfairness. Even if Trump's right to squeeze China on trade (I happen to agree) there's no question that the soybean farmers are unhappy.

The truth is that the manufacturing jobs are gone for good and they're not coming back. Obama was right about that. Trump's economic populism sounds good but the tide of history's going the other way.

I do object to your statement that I'm making things up. That's a negative personal characterization and it's quite false. — fishfry

You stated that, "millions of blacks and Hispanics are doing much better in Trump's economy than they did in Obama's. You think they don't know that?" (my emphasis). Yet a dismal 4% of Black Americans and 19% of Hispanic Americans believe that Trump has been good for their respective communities (particularly given that Black unemployment rate was halved under Obama). So please explain to me where this substantive block of ethnic minorities are that believe Trump has been good for them. Because it seems impossible for anyone who "reads and does research obsessively", as you claim, to suggest as much, when it seems transparent to anyone keeping just a finger on political discourse that Trump has considerable issues with racial minorities (given, you know, all the racism).

While unemployment is at record lows for black americans, income has dropped and income disparity has increased under Trump for them. So better off if measured by having a job or not, worse off by the other standards.

So please explain to me where this substantive block of ethnic minorities are that believe Trump has been good for them. — Maw

Like I say I find argumentum at linkum, or argument by flinging links at each other, tedious.There are sources out there to support pretty much everything. I have in fact read several credible articles supporting the idea that Trump has African-American and Hispanic support. I'd ask you to stipulate that I'm making that statement in good faith and good will. I don't feel like going out on Google and curating the links for you, which you could just dismiss anyway as being not from approved sources, or outright lies or whatever. I'm just choosing to not even start that game.

Oh and also, you know who are the most anti-illegal-immigrant people around? The Mexican-American citizens who came here legally and established themselves. The Hispanic middle class doesn't buy the immigration crap from white liberals.