The other side of us: "Would you help Trump?"

[fast]

For many of us, feelings can run deep--more so on some issues than others. It's so easy to be angry, and for some of us, convictions set in while others might mellow. Despite how we feel, there are times when we might act contrary to how we feel.

To illustrate, there are people that genuinely despise the police, as easily gleaned by their choice words they flower about, yet amidst our hard core persona and occasional vile thoughts of what we'd like to see, there's a side to many people (save those so otherwise entrenched in their convictions) that would set aside their animosity and help them in circumstances where they might be in a time of need.

To give another example, there might be a person that you absolutely can't stand and have awful thoughts when your mind has time to wonder, yet in the moment where he or she might need some assistance, some can muster an about face and be of assistance.

Many people (mostly of the minority leftist bent) have voiced some not so nice things about Trump, not much unlike many people (mostly of the majority rightist bent) voiced some not so kind words about obama. Many of those on the right that had hate in their heart for obama would have came in support if specifically called by name to do so, much like how a cop hater would stand in support and defense of one if asked.

I realize some of you aren't US citizens, but to not exclude you, suppose you are. Is there a side to you (and I'm speaking predominantly to those with a bent pointing left) that would feel a sense of duty to be of assistance to your president Trump if specifically called upon?

I know that for some of you (and how few, no clue) that [helping Trump] will depend, but that as an answer doesn't quite cut it. Even for many on the right, for them too [helping obama] it may depend--but for fewer of them it will depend--not because of who the president is [or was] but rather which side (left or right) the potential helper is on.

I'm suspecting (and with a ceterus parabus between dislike of president) that the left will have more, "it depends" and less answering to the call than those on the right. Now, when it comes to Trump, it's already a given that he's disfavored by the left, so I can't readily compare reactions fairly, yet if you can imagine a president where the tables were turned such he was despised by the right of the same degree (and favored by the left) --mimicking a counter balance to Trump, then when comparing apples to apples, there is something about the make up of the people on the left versus the right that predict which side would be more apt to tap into their other side when faced with a president that is out of favor.

Anyhoots, is your dislike for Trump so great that you could (or could not) in good conscious step up if called upon to do so?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Duty, no. We have no such duty.

Whether I would help would be based on whether I evaluated the objective as good or not.

 

[beero1000]

For many of us, feelings can run deep--more so on some issues than others. It's so easy to be angry, and for some of us, convictions set in while others might mellow. Despite how we feel, there are times when we might act contrary to how we feel.

To illustrate, there are people that genuinely despise the police, as easily gleaned by their choice words they flower about, yet amidst our hard core persona and occasional vile thoughts of what we'd like to see, there's a side to many people (save those so otherwise entrenched in their convictions) that would set aside their animosity and help them in circumstances where they might be in a time of need.

To give another example, there might be a person that you absolutely can't stand and have awful thoughts when your mind has time to wonder, yet in the moment where he or she might need some assistance, some can muster an about face and be of assistance.

Many people (mostly of the minority leftist bent) have voiced some not so nice things about Trump, not much unlike many people (mostly of the majority rightist bent) voiced some not so kind words about obama. Many of those on the right that had hate in their heart for obama would have came in support if specifically called by name to do so, much like how a cop hater would stand in support and defense of one if asked.

I realize some of you aren't US citizens, but to not exclude you, suppose you are. Is there a side to you (and I'm speaking predominantly to those with a bent pointing left) that would feel a sense of duty to be of assistance to your president Trump if specifically called upon?

I know that for some of you (and how few, no clue) that [helping Trump] will depend, but that as an answer doesn't quite cut it. Even for many on the right, for them too [helping obama] it may depend--but for fewer of them it will depend--not because of who the president is [or was] but rather which side (left or right) the potential helper is on.

I'm suspecting (and with a ceterus parabus between dislike of president) that the left will have more, "it depends" and less answering to the call than those on the right. Now, when it comes to Trump, it's already a given that he's disfavored by the left, so I can't readily compare reactions fairly, yet if you can imagine a president where the tables were turned such he was despised by the right of the same degree (and favored by the left) --mimicking a counter balance to Trump, then when comparing apples to apples, there is something about the make up of the people on the left versus the right that predict which side would be more apt to tap into their other side when faced with a president that is out of favor.

Anyhoots, is your dislike for Trump so great that you could (or could not) in good conscious step up if called upon to do so?

Assistance with what? Step up to do what? Called upon to do what? Could you possibly be vaguer?

Carrying groceries? Robbing a bank? Making change of a dollar? Stopping a mugging? Pointing out some spinach in their teeth? Fighting foreign invaders?

Are there many people who will blindly agree to 'answer a call' with no information given about it? Ben Affleck movies aside, I wouldn't even do that for my closest friends or immediate family members.

 

[fast]

Are there many people who will blindly agree to 'answer a call' with no information given about it?

Of course. Not around here, I suspect, but yes. That's not a dig on liberals. Right or wrong, if the president of the country that your fellow citizens have fought and died for comes to you and requests a helping hand on something, then your love of country and respect for the office he holds will make a difference if you're of a particular breed.

Of course, most aren't going to agree to be a suicide bomber to needlessly take out friendlies, get real, but there are many that would answer the call, even if it's not seemingly the most moral of actions you're being called upon for, yet if there's a glimmer of reasoning that it's for the greater good of country, to what degree would (we) set aside our disgust of Trump and be a patriot instead of a whining exerciser of free speech?

Are there many people you ask. Don't imbue liberal rationality, clear reasoning, and critical thinking skills on our populous.

 

[beero1000]

Are there many people who will blindly agree to 'answer a call' with no information given about it?

Of course. Not around here, I suspect, but yes. That's not a dig on liberals. Right or wrong, if the president of the country that your fellow citizens have fought and died for comes to you and requests a helping hand on something, then your love of country and respect for the office he holds will make a difference if you're of a particular breed.

Of course, most aren't going to agree to be a suicide bomber to needlessly take out friendlies, get real, but there are many that would answer the call, even if it's not seemingly the most moral of actions you're being called upon for, yet if there's a glimmer of reasoning that it's for the greater good of country, to what degree would (we) set aside our disgust of Trump and be a patriot instead of a whining exerciser of free speech?

Are there many people you ask. Don't imbue liberal rationality, clear reasoning, and critical thinking skills on our populous.

Blind nationalism gives me the heebie-jeebies.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Even Jeanette Rankin, the only vote against the US entering war against Japan after Pearl Harbor did not trust Roosevelt. I doubt she would have helped him, even as a pacifist.

For me it totally depends on the circumstances. Could I stand shoulder to shoulder with the orange fucktard because there existed a greater evil threatening us both? Certainly. There's nothing unusual about doing that. It's quite rational. Emotionally I'd hate the fucker the whole time.

 

[Treedbear]

I'll do things that overall help the country no matter who makes the call. But I wouldn't let Trump into my house if he had to take a pee.

 

[bigfield]

Are there many people who will blindly agree to 'answer a call' with no information given about it?

Of course. Not around here, I suspect, but yes. That's not a dig on liberals. Right or wrong, if the president of the country that your fellow citizens have fought and died for comes to you and requests a helping hand on something, then your love of country and respect for the office he holds will make a difference if you're of a particular breed.

That particular breed is authoritarian followers, as classified by Bob Altemeyer.

 

[fast]

Of course. Not around here, I suspect, but yes. That's not a dig on liberals. Right or wrong, if the president of the country that your fellow citizens have fought and died for comes to you and requests a helping hand on something, then your love of country and respect for the office he holds will make a difference if you're of a particular breed.

That particular breed is authoritarian followers, as classified by Bob Altemeyer.

Spot on

 

[Treedbear]

Are there many people who will blindly agree to 'answer a call' with no information given about it?

...
Are there many people you ask. Don't imbue liberal rationality, clear reasoning, and critical thinking skills on our populous.

I watch CSPAN-1 call-in while I'm getting ready to go out in the morning. Lately the commentary is getting to be almost completely pro-Trump. It started with the claim that the Democrats are picking on him all the time. Then there was talk about how they're unpatriotic and we're on the verge of civil war. Now (and it seems to be coming mostly from the south) it's getting more religiously based. One guy was saying how he's not the smartest person in the world but he knows common sense when he sees it, and he knows Donald Trump has God in his heart. So (he says) anyone who's against Trump is against God.

As I've been saying, the tragedy has less to do with what Trump does while in office and more to do with what his election says about the mentality of the average US citizen.

 

[ronburgundy]

Are there many people who will blindly agree to 'answer a call' with no information given about it?

Of course. Not around here, I suspect, but yes. That's not a dig on liberals. Right or wrong, if the president of the country that your fellow citizens have fought and died for comes to you and requests a helping hand on something, then your love of country and respect for the office he holds will make a difference if you're of a particular breed.

You are referring to blind authoritarian obedience, which is rampant on the right, but has nothing to do with love of country or respect for the people that died for it. The President can be (and this one is) a great enemy to the country they rule. Only if you define "country" as "anything the highest authority of that country says", is "helping the President" equal to "love of country".

In addition, some of the people who died in the military commanded by Presidents did not die for their country. They died for their own desire to be blindly obedient to authority, and their actions caused more harm than aid to their fellow citizens or their country in terms of the principles that define its laws and governmental structure.

I have never felt any duty to any President or any other authority, simply by nature of the authority they hold.
I also feel no duty to abide by whatever the majority of my fellow citizens say they want, which could and has meant in the past, to act in heinously immoral ways towards others outside that majority or even due things that harm most in the majority who are too dumb to see it.

I've spent 40+years questioning and shaping my ethical views. My only sense of duty is to abide by and to protect those ethics. My ethics are fundamentally rooted in preserving each person's liberty to control their own mind and body, while recognizing that social systems are critical to our common welfare and that individuals benefiting from those systems should be required to help sustain them, but free to leave them instead.

As luck would have it, I was born into a country at a time when there are Constitutional principles in place that are closer to my ethics than most societies in human history, despite specific instances where those principles are not lived up to. Thus, I do have a sense of national pride, but only because of those principles, not any authority, flag, or view that my fellow citizens are better humans than others.

Quite frankly, the power of the President makes him (sadly the only pronoun that applies thus far), the world's greatest potential threat to what I feel a duty to protect. Thus, I would be as likely to be the first in line to oppose as to help him, depending upon his actions.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Many people (mostly of the minority leftist bent) have voiced some not so nice things about Trump, not much unlike many people (mostly of the majority rightist bent) voiced some not so kind words about obama. Many of those on the right that had hate in their heart for obama would have came in support if specifically called by name to do so, much like how a cop hater would stand in support and defense of one if asked.

I don't agree. Can you name one instance where the right rallied to Obama?

As for Trump, if he fell down in front of me, I'd like to think I'd help him up. But if Trump me asked me to sacrifice for my country, I'd make that determination myself.

 

[RavenSky]

For me it totally depends on the circumstances. Could I stand shoulder to shoulder with the orange fucktard because there existed a greater evil threatening us both? Certainly. There's nothing unusual about doing that. It's quite rational. Emotionally I'd hate the fucker the whole time.

I'll do things that overall help the country no matter who makes the call. But I wouldn't let Trump into my house if he had to take a pee.

^^^ What they said, except that I would not be shoulder to shoulder. I'd make certain there were several men standing between me and the pussy-grabbing orange fucktard; THEN I'd get to work saving the world against the alien invasion.

 

[fast]

I've spent 40+years questioning and shaping my ethical views. My only sense of duty is to abide by and to protect those ethics. My ethics are fundamentally rooted in preserving each person's liberty to control their own mind and body, while recognizing that social systems are critical to our common welfare and that individuals benefiting from those systems should be required to help sustain them, but free to leave them instead.

Each persons liberty? If that is taken to the extreme, it would lead to freedom run amuck. There are many people that think there should be limits on personal freedom and will voice their opinions accordingly. How off base am I to think that any such expressed view that isn't aligned with your ethics will be characterized as hate speech? Your espoused view of Trump strikes me as quite hateful.

 

[untermensche]

Many people (mostly of the minority leftist bent) have voiced some not so nice things about Trump, not much unlike many people (mostly of the majority rightist bent) voiced some not so kind words about obama. Many of those on the right that had hate in their heart for obama would have came in support if specifically called by name to do so, much like how a cop hater would stand in support and defense of one if asked.

The right hated Obama because he was a Communist Muslim about to send everybody to concentration camps. He implements a plan Republicans had been promoting and suddenly it is the end of civilization.

The left hates Trump because he desires to degrade already third rate social services to the unfortunate and elderly to give tax breaks to billionaires. He has promoted an unconstitutional ban on Muslims entering the country, for no reason, twice. He just caused major European leaders to publicly say they have to rethink their relationship with the US. He is a blind bull in a china shop destroying everything he touches.

There is a difference between the criticism that some can notice.

 

[ronburgundy]

I've spent 40+years questioning and shaping my ethical views. My only sense of duty is to abide by and to protect those ethics. My ethics are fundamentally rooted in preserving each person's liberty to control their own mind and body, while recognizing that social systems are critical to our common welfare and that individuals benefiting from those systems should be required to help sustain them, but free to leave them instead.

Each persons liberty? If that is taken to the extreme, it would lead to freedom run amuck.

No, the principle of personal liberty is an inherently self-constraining one. Any action by any person that impedes upon another's body or property is in violation of the principle of personal liberty. In addition, since it is an objective reality that people's existence depend upon inherently shared resources like air and water, the principle also limits what people can do to and with those resources, which in turn favors the concept of preventing private ownership of them and treating them as communally owned.

There are many people that think there should be limits on personal freedom and will voice their opinions accordingly.

They can voice their opinions all they want, and I will voice that they are failing to apply basic logic, which would tell them that the principle of personal liberty has internal constraints of its own that arise from the objective physical limits of where one person ends and another begins. Also, I didn't say that personal liberty was the sole principle that I think should guide ethics and laws, only the most foundational one.

How off base am I to think that any such expressed view that isn't aligned with your ethics will be characterized as hate speech?

You are completely off base. I do not support hate speech laws, because they contradict basic personal liberty. Speech is the action that that is least likely to have direct causal effects on another person's body or property, thus it is the action least subject to restriction under the principle of personal liberty. Speech that can be criminalized is largely limited to speech done with both the intent and likely effect of causing a third party to physically harm another person or their property, such as speech that commands a paid employee to carry out such a criminal act. Note that defamation speech is not criminalized, but rather is only the subject of civil suit for financial damages.

Your espoused view of Trump strikes me as quite hateful.

True, I absolutely do hate Trump. I wish nothing but bad things upon him and would laugh out loud if I saw him get hit by a bus. My only negative feeling would result from the realization that Pence would then be President and that could easily be much worse. My starting default is to have empathy and sympathy for a person, but that default either increases or decreases depending on what I learn about them. I know enough about Trump and the literally millions of people his actions will harm that such sympathy is way past zero into the negative where hatred lives.

There is nothing wrong with hate. In fact, there can be something wrong with NOT hating some things. Hate is a valid and useful emotion. It is much like "intolerance" in that regard. While some liberal rhetoric occasionally starts to sound like platitudes that hate and intolerance are themselves the thing that is wrong, that is incorrect and not an honest description of how liberals feel. They are hateful and intolerant towards hate and intolerance that is directed at people for their innate traits (e.g., gender, race) or their personal actions that cause no harm to others (e.g., doing drugs, violating behavioral gender or sex norms).

IOW, it is what and why one is hating and being intolerant toward that matters. However, most of conservatism (and most religion that is the heart of conservatism) is about spreading hate and intolerance toward things that do not deserve it. Thus, in the rhetorical battle against conservatives, liberals sometimes resort to just attacking hate and intolerance itself, which is lazy and ultimately counter-productive.

 

[Elixir]

I have quite an aversion to watching people or animals suffer. But if Trump was suffering, and you lined up every suffering person and animal in the order in which I would alleviate their suffering (assuming I could), Trump would be show up after most of the animals, probably right after the house flies, but before the mosquitoes and ticks.

 

[fast]

The left hates Trump because he desires to degrade already third rate social services to the unfortunate and elderly to give tax breaks to billionaires.

Degrade huh.

So, we already have a system operating as if it embraces a "take take take" motto, yet you characterize it as third rate because it hasn't been changed to reflect a more egregious "take take take and take until you can't take no more" mentality. Not getting undeserved hand outs reminds me of discussions on tipping; no wonder there is hate.

Trump comes along (who also wants better for the unfortunate and elderly) yet wants to change it to a "take take" system reflecting a better sense of fairness. Helping less is not the same as harming. When a philanthropist chooses to donate less (even when they can donate more), it's a bastardized interpretation to say he is harming when merely cutting back on the handouts.

What amazes me is the lack of shame. Whether it's single mothers expecting subsidized give-always, users with an entrenched sense of entitlement, or a liberal user wanting the world saved, it's always the same (want want want or even need need need) but always

Always

Always (want or need)

On someone else's dime.

 

[Treedbear]

The left hates Trump because he desires to degrade already third rate social services to the unfortunate and elderly to give tax breaks to billionaires.

Degrade huh.

So, we already have a system operating as if it embraces a "take take take" motto, yet you characterize it as third rate because it hasn't been changed to reflect a more egregious "take take take and take until you can't take no more" mentality. Not getting undeserved hand outs reminds me of discussions on tipping; no wonder there is hate.

Trump comes along (who also wants better for the unfortunate and elderly) yet wants to change it to a "take take" system reflecting a better sense of fairness. Helping less is not the same as harming. When a philanthropist chooses to donate less (even when they can donate more), it's a bastardized interpretation to say he is harming when merely cutting back on the handouts.

What amazes me is the lack of shame. Whether it's single mothers expecting subsidized give-always, users with an entrenched sense of entitlement, or a liberal user wanting the world saved, it's always the same (want want want or even need need need) but always

Always

Always (want or need)

On someone else's dime.

If you want a society based on equal opportunity you have to recognize that capitalism by itself can't offer that. It's not a natural state of affairs when the government's purpose is to protect people's right to possess things. We tend to think so, but it's a very modified version of the principle of survival of the fittest. The difference between it and nature is that the more one possesses the more of an advantage one has. That has some advantages because it helps spur innovation. But it is in fact so successful at this that those who have less resources than some minimum threshold end up in a permanent subclass. Therefore some form of redistribution of resources is required to equalize opportunity of success through effort. The shame belongs to the folks who take for granted so much more than they need. Like low-deductible health insurance when they could easily afford the minor expenses that are catastrophies for low income families. It actually makes more economic sense for the wealthy if they choose to have very high deductible at lower premiums. And at some level buying insurance doesn't make sense at all. It's the poor who need low deductibles. There's the duh! But it's built into the system so that the wealthy are favored in every way. Capitalism shouldn't be seen as a system, it's more like a tool. It has to be balanced with some degree of social responcibility (socialism if you like to call it that).

 

[sharon45]

However, most of conservatism (and most religion that is the heart of conservatism) is about spreading hate and intolerance toward things that do not deserve it.

Conservatism is essentially about small government, and this more appropriately describes neo-cons.