Have a rotten day, sir

[Pixelated]

I would like it included in my obituary (hopefully not in the near future) that I was professionally polite and courteous to some twit who came into my (Canadian border city) store wearing a MAGA sweatshirt.

"He's really a nice guy," said my head cashier, referring (I presume) to the customer.

Obviously I couldn't get into a political bunfight in the middle of my shift, but I do not understand how somebody can be a "nice guy" if they support somebody who:

• publicly mocks disabled people
• thinks neo-Nazis are fine people
• considers it quite acceptable to talk about grabbing women by the pussy
• constantly sucks up to some of the worst dictators on the planet
• doesn't say boo about the brutal murder of a journalist from his own country because the murder took place under the auspices of one of those dictators he's busily cozying up to
• separates migrant children from their parents and promptly LOSES TRACK of some 1,000+ of those same children.

And so on and so forth.

To me, this is rather like saying "Well, apart from that little dust-up with the Jews, Hitler was really an okay guy."

[mjr]

Wait. I don't follow.

So a person who disagrees with another person politically can't be a nice person? isn't that part of the problem we're having politically right now in the U.S.?

[MadMike]

I understand how you feel, and I probably hate Trump as much as you do. However, not all his supporters are the racist, sexist, "Fuck the Libtards" nutjob types. Some of them are good people, but they blindly follow a political party, or they think that Trump is being portrayed unfairly by the media, and that he's not as bad as he's made out to be.

And there are some who voted for him reluctantly, as the lesser of two evils, although those people typically aren't wearing the MAGA hats and driving around with the huge signs and bumper stickers on their vehicles. And I can respect the belief that he's the lesser evil, because both choices were pretty evil. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. One of my friends falls into this category, and she does a lot of government work, and she claims that the classified info she has access to that most of us do not tells her that Hillary would have been a much worse choice. Still, she has no love for Trump either, and she's always saying he's making a mess of things and making her job harder.

Then there's another one of my friends who I've been friends with for almost 30 years, and I'm starting to question why. It's not because he supports Trump, it's because he blindly supports Trump. Then again, he'd vote for an inanimate carbon rod as long as it had an "R" next to its name. If it was a democrat doing the things Trump's doing, he'd be screaming louder than the rest of us put together, but because it's a republican, that makes it all OK. He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and he acts like he knows everything, and he's also been a bit of a racist, although he's toned down that part over the years. I don't know if he's eased up on his beliefs or if she's just keeping quiet, but I remember a time when every other word out of his mouth was the N-word. But to his credit, his profanity-laced rant he posted on Myspace when Obama won the election did not have that word in it, so that's progress at least. He has started arguments with me on Facebook several times, and things got ugly when Trump was running for president, and even uglier when Trump won. Anytime I posted anything negative about Trump, he acted like I was insulting his family or something. Eventually the arguments would cool down and we'd start bullshitting about stuff we have in common like music and beer, but eventually I got to the point where I realized it wasn't doing my blood pressure any good, so I asked him to knock it off, and in return I would refrain from starting arguments on his page as well. He listened for a little bit, but then he'd start up again. It finally got really ugly when I found out how bad Trump's tax "cut" screwed me over, and he still tried to defend him. I laid into him pretty good that time, and he hasn't tried it again since. I guess sometimes you have to go off on someone to get your point across.

It's sad that politics is turning people against each other like this, and I don't remember it always being this way. I remember there were people who didn't like Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, etc., but I don't remember it ever being this ugly. But then after 9-11, if you disagreed with Bush II, you were a terrorist-lover or a traitor. If you disagreed with Obama, you were a racist (to be honest, there were a lot of racists out there, but I also know a lot of people weren't racist but simply didn't agree with his policies), and if you disagree with Trump, you must be a Muslim, a freeloader, a terrorist, unamerican, and you probably like to drown puppies. OK, I may have exaggerated that last part, but you get the idea.

And as much as I say it shouldn't be like that, I'm somewhat guilty of political bias as well. If I'm driving around and I see a car with a Trump/Pence sticker, I automatically catch myself thinking "idiot!" And my next door neighbor is a really nice guy. Very quiet, friendly, and he's always doing little things to help out, like if he uses his snowblower on his sidewalk, a lot of the time he'll do mine too because he knows I don't have one. And a couple times my lawnmower wasn't working, and when he saw me unsuccessfully trying to start it, he offered to let me borrower his. So imagine my shock and surprise when I saw him put up a Trump sign in his yard. And I caught myself thinking a little less of him, and that's just not right. Still, I don't understand why he could support someone like that, especially considering he has two teenage daughters. I can usually see both sides of the argument, but not this one. I think Obama was an OK president -- could have been better, could have been worse. But I can see why some people think he was doing a good job, and I can see why some people think he was doing a bad job. But I can not for the life of me understand why any sane person would think Trump is doing a good job.

I am curious to see if my neighbor puts up another Trump sign next year. I know most people who voted for him last time say they will again, but I also know quite a few people who got screwed over by him and will no longer support him. My one friend's boyfriend voted for him, and ended up regretting it. He had been job-hunting, and had just landed a good-paying government job. But shortly after Trump took office, he made some cuts that effected the company he was suppose to start working for, and he ended up losing his new job before he even had a chance to start it. And stories are popping up left and right about people like me who got screwed by GOP tax scam. One tax preparer shared a story where one of his customers ended up owing a lot of money when he never owed anything before, and as soon as he left the office, he went out to his car and scraped his Trump sticker off his bumper. Even my right-wing stepdad, who unsurprisingly voted for Trump is now saying that Trump is "not good." Whether he'll actually vote against him remains to be seen, because I don't know if he's ever voted blue in his life.

[Pixelated]

Wait. I don't follow.

So a person who disagrees with another person politically can't be a nice person? isn't that part of the problem we're having politically right now in the U.S.?

You seem to have missed a significant part of my not-terribly-large post. It is not, by any means, just a matter of somebody disagreeing with another person's politics.

*snip*
Still, I don't understand why he could support someone like that, especially considering he has two teenage daughters. I can usually see both sides of the argument, but not this one. I think Obama was an OK president -- could have been better, could have been worse. But I can see why some people think he was doing a good job, and I can see why some people think he was doing a bad job. But I can not for the life of me understand why any sane person would think Trump is doing a good job.

*snip*

That was a well-written and obviously thoughtful commentary there, MadMike.

You've pretty much summed it up in that paragraph. I like some politicians, don't like others. But even the ones I like -- I don't try to pretend that everything they do is fabutastic for the country and anybody who DARES to oppose them is a libtard and a snowflake. I would never, ever blatantly ignore or find lame excuses for something like Trump's public mocking of that disabled reporter. And the ones I don't like, it's generally because I disagree with their stands and policies.

Trump is in a class of his own, and it's not a good class. IMO it's no longer possible to say "Well, yeah, he's done a few things I didn't like, but ..."

At this point, I see people who still support him, after all this, as people who are as hate-filled and wilfully ignorant as he is.

[mjr]

You seem to have missed a significant part of my not-terribly-large post. It is not, by any means, just a matter of somebody disagreeing with another person's politics.

Ok, that's fair.

However, what if the roles were reversed?

What would you think if you encountered a conversation where two non-Hillary (for instance) supporters completed a transaction with a Hillary Supporter who had on an "I'm With Her" t-shirt, and one of the non-supporters said, "She seemed like a nice lady", and then the other one disagreed, because of HRC's positions on things?

Though, I do agree with you that MadMike put it rather well.

[jackfaire]

Ok, that's fair.

However, what if the roles were reversed?

It would rely on HRCs opinions being objectively horrible. They're not. People not agree with all of their ideas but most people couldn't make the argument that she's supporting objectively horrible things like racism and naziism. IF she was then yes it would be fair to doubt the "Nice person" tag.

Trump is an objectively horrible person. Something that until he ran for office most people actually remembered. Until the day he announced his candidacy he was considered a friend of the Clintons. He's always been a shitty guy. His becoming a Republican and running for office didn't make him one.

He stuck an R next to his name and suddenly all of his previously narcissistic racist behavior was excused for uhm reasons?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

However, what if the roles were reversed.

Ordinarily in other circumstances I'd agree with you - if this is Bush 1 or 2, or Reagan. Truth is I OD'd on anti Bush stuff especially towards the end of his presidency because he actually seemed to be figuring stuff out.

As others have said, Trump is for better or worse, exceptional. He doesn't check his speech and it has real world consequences such as https://www.psypost.org/2019/03/stud...d-before-53357 .

More or less, my issue at present is I don't know what to do with half an electorate when that half of the electorate seems to be A-OK with graft, rampant racism, and escalating violence so long as it's their guy doing it.

So I don't actually think negatively about Trump supporters: that's politics. However I'm overtly fearful that the safeguards that should have kicked in have not and a guy is operating overtly in a criminal manner and they're fine so long as the Dems aren't in. I'll focus on this more in a post I'm about to do though (also read as I'm not looking to argue this statement in this thread).

[mjr]

It would rely on HRCs opinions being objectively horrible. They're not. People not agree with all of their ideas but most people couldn't make the argument that she's supporting objectively horrible things like racism and naziism. IF she was then yes it would be fair to doubt the "Nice person" tag.

Ok. That's fair. But there are many people who find Mrs. Clinton's opinions to be "objectively horrible". Many people also believe she's a criminal.

Just like many people believe Mr. Trump is a criminal.

[mjr]

More or less, my issue at present is I don't know what to do with half an electorate when that half of the electorate seems to be A-OK with graft, rampant racism, and escalating violence so long as it's their guy doing it.

I'm guessing they look at it as somehow their way of "fighting back". I have no idea. Or they're OK with it because of all of the Antifa stories, and stories of people ripping MAGA hats off of people's heads.

So I don't actually think negatively about Trump supporters: that's politics. However I'm overtly fearful that the safeguards that should have kicked in have not and a guy is operating overtly in a criminal manner and they're fine so long as the Dems aren't in. I'll focus on this more in a post I'm about to do though (also read as I'm not looking to argue this statement in this thread).

I'll check it out...and possibly comment there.

[Canarr]

While I entirely agree with your assessment of Trump being a horrible person (and president), as well as with MadMike's statement comparing Obama and Trump, one minor issue.

This part:

• thinks neo-Nazis are fine people

has actually been misrepresented. The full quote was:


TRUMP: Those people -- all of those people -- excuse me. I've condemned neo-Nazis. I've condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists, by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue, Robert E. Lee. So -- excuse me. And you take a look at some of the groups and you see -- and you'd know it if you were honest reporters, which in many cases you're not, but many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. So this week it's Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson's coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you all -- you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop? But they were there to protest -- excuse me. You take a look, the night before, they were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Infrastructure question, go ahead.

and:

TRUMP: Excuse me, excuse me. (inaudible) themselves (inaudible) and you have some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group -- excuse me, excuse me -- I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

as well as:

TRUMP: And you had people, and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You've got -- you had a lot of bad -- you had a lot of bad people in the other group…

Emphasis mine.

This is actually a case where Trump was right in his point, and was willfully misrepresented. He has certainly said and done enough that deserves scorn and anger, but not this.

[jackfaire]

Just like many people believe Mr. Trump is a criminal.

Trump is factually a criminal. He's committed criminal acts. He's been charged for them. Charges were dropped when he finally corrected his actions when he realized the charges were serious.

The "criminal" act everyone cites are the private email servers. Those same people that call that "criminal" said it wasn't criminal When George W. Bush did the exact same thing so those people are either mentally unfit or they don't actually believe it's criminal.

Saying it's criminal though is a great cover for not voting a woman in as President because it gave sexist morons something they could point to. Like trying to discredit Obama's Presidency after all if it's a legal matter then of course it's not their prejudice and bigotry they're just selectively upholding the law for...reasons.

[Canarr]

Trump is factually a criminal. He's committed criminal acts. He's been charged for them. Charges were dropped when he finally corrected his actions when he realized the charges were serious.

Another nitpick: you're not a criminal for having criminal charges filed against you. You're a criminal once you've been convicted. Are there any criminal convictions on record for Trump?

While I agree with you that Hillary's emails were ridiculously overhyped, putting her rejection down to sexism is way too easy. She was just a shitty candidate all around.

- calling half the voters a "basket of deplorables"
- not actually campaigning in several states
- choosing niche topics, such as the glass ceiling and the number of women in executive positions, which aren't actually relevant for a majority of people

Not to mention she (together with Bill) is practically a poster child for the kind of career politician that the average voter isn't exactly fond of. My favorite - the point where, had I been able to vote in the US election, she'd have lost my vote - was her attack on Bernie on the tax issue. She claimed Bernie should publicize his takes, or did he have anything to hide?

The result was: the Sanders couple made around 250-300 K$ per year. The Clintons? Somewhere in excess of 25 million, most of which were "speakers fees" paid to Bill. How exactly does that not scream, Corruption? And if you know that you have that kind of skeleton in your closet, how do you open your mouth about your opponent's taxes like that?

Both Clinton and Trump were incredibly arrogant candidates. Only Trump's arrogance was pointed at the "elites", while Clinton's was aimed at everybody except the "elites". Hence, Americans are stuck with the turd for President.