What is the Trumper's vision of the country if they had their way?

[Angra Mainyu]

It's a simple question. Can anyone answer?

Minimal sarcasm, please.

1. America first and closely follow what is actually written in our Constitution
2. Disengage from globalism and get out of all the fake wars. No new wars started unless Congress declares them (see#1 above)
3. Lower income taxes for the middle class and higher taxes for the ultra rich
4. Everyone is given equal opportunity but no one is moved closer to the finish line. No racism, no sexism, no identity politics and no affirmative action anywhere.
No favoritism for anyone and everyone succeeds or fails according their ability.
5. Smaller government. Combine the NSA and TSA. Combine the FBI and CIA. Crusade to remove many layers of administrative bureaucracy.
6. Use the money saved on #2 above and focus on advancement and acquisition of high value manufacturing. And de-focus on low value agriculture and mineral/oil mining industries.
7. See number #1 above, set up a task force how to best compete with the CCP in order to ensure continuing democracy, freedom, and liberty.
8. See number #1 above, anchor our reserve dollar back to real money (perhaps gold again) and make it competitive with newer block chain technology.

That doesn't comport with my experience in trying to engage Trumpsters in online discussions.

The elimination of abortion and the freedom to carry a gun wherever they go seem to be the top two concerns. Third would be the establishment of Christianity (the conservative variety - liberal Christians are as bad as atheists in their view) as the number one cultural and moral influence in the country.

I'm not denying that there may be many Trumpsters who support the items in RVonse's list, just pointing out that the one's I've mentioned seem to be more important to them.

Right, there is a wide variety of views among Trump supporters. But number 1 above seems to a feature common to nearly all of them. In particular, the put an emphasis on following the Constitution rather than changing it via judicial reinterpretation. Of course, they are not always correct in their interpretation of the Constitution. But those who have thought a bit about it at least realize that the relevant meaning of the words is that at which the Constitution was written.

 

[KeepTalking]

That doesn't comport with my experience in trying to engage Trumpsters in online discussions.

The elimination of abortion and the freedom to carry a gun wherever they go seem to be the top two concerns. Third would be the establishment of Christianity (the conservative variety - liberal Christians are as bad as atheists in their view) as the number one cultural and moral influence in the country.

I'm not denying that there may be many Trumpsters who support the items in RVonse's list, just pointing out that the one's I've mentioned seem to be more important to them.

Right, there is a wide variety of views among Trump supporters. But number 1 above seems to a feature common to nearly all of them. In particular, the put an emphasis on following the Constitution rather than changing it via judicial reinterpretation. Of course, they are not always correct in their interpretation of the Constitution. But those who have thought a bit about it at least realize that the relevant meaning of the words is that at which the Constitution was written.

I think the common feature is their willingness to give lip service to following the Constitution, and some have likely even deluded themselves into believing that is what they want. Of course, most of them have no idea what is in the Constitution, or what it means, preferring to skip to the Bill of Rights, specifically the 2nd amendment. They also like to talk about obedience to the Free Speech portion of the 1st amendment while entirely missing the meaning of that one (see Josh Hawley), and leaving the peskier parts of that amendment, like Freedom of Religion, out entirely.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think the common feature is their willingness to give lip service to following the Constitution, and some have likely even deluded themselves into believing that is what they want. Of course, most of them have no idea what is in the Constitution, or what it means, preferring to skip to the Bill of Rights, specifically the 2nd amendment. They also like to talk about obedience to the Free Speech portion of the 1st amendment while entirely missing the meaning of that one (see Josh Hawley), and leaving the peskier parts of that amendment, like Freedom of Religion, out entirely.

This ^^^.

They think facebook and twitter censoring them violates the first amendment. They think the second amendment means no limits on weapons at all. It never meant that. My guess is they couldn't identify any other amendments at all if they were given a pop quiz.

 

[ZiprHead]

It's not about Trausti's feelings. It's about the truth. It's about what Trump supporters actually want. If they are being misrepresented and you believe it, you end up with false beliefs.

And I've asked Trausti to tell us what he wants instead of sniping from the corner. He's yet to do so.

Given your reply to someone who did explain, it's understandable that Trausti pointed out that the thread misrepresents his views, but chose not to engage. If you look at the exchanges rather than the OP, this thread seems not like an attempt to know about what Trump supporters want for the country, but simply about condemning Trump supporters.

Yes, Trausti is a delicate flower who needs to be coddled and bottle-fed while he snipes one-liners at the rest of us.

At least RVonse had the balls to continue to respond.

 

[Keith&Co.]

My guess is they couldn't identify any other amendments at all if they were given a pop quiz.

5th.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That doesn't comport with my experience in trying to engage Trumpsters in online discussions.

The elimination of abortion and the freedom to carry a gun wherever they go seem to be the top two concerns. Third would be the establishment of Christianity (the conservative variety - liberal Christians are as bad as atheists in their view) as the number one cultural and moral influence in the country.

I'm not denying that there may be many Trumpsters who support the items in RVonse's list, just pointing out that the one's I've mentioned seem to be more important to them.

Right, there is a wide variety of views among Trump supporters. But number 1 above seems to a feature common to nearly all of them. In particular, the put an emphasis on following the Constitution rather than changing it via judicial reinterpretation. Of course, they are not always correct in their interpretation of the Constitution. But those who have thought a bit about it at least realize that the relevant meaning of the words is that at which the Constitution was written.

I think the common feature is their willingness to give lip service to following the Constitution, and some have likely even deluded themselves into believing that is what they want. Of course, most of them have no idea what is in the Constitution, or what it means, preferring to skip to the Bill of Rights, specifically the 2nd amendment. They also like to talk about obedience to the Free Speech portion of the 1st amendment while entirely missing the meaning of that one (see Josh Hawley), and leaving the peskier parts of that amendment, like Freedom of Religion, out entirely.

That is not my experience with Trump supporters. But let us take a look at those who voted for Trump in this thread: Trausti and probably RVonse. They do have a reasonably good idea of what's in the constitution (not worse than leftists in this forum, on average, and going by their posts), and they do not resemble the description you give above in terms of intentions, either.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Given your reply to someone who did explain, it's understandable that Trausti pointed out that the thread misrepresents his views, but chose not to engage. If you look at the exchanges rather than the OP, this thread seems not like an attempt to know about what Trump supporters want for the country, but simply about condemning Trump supporters.

Yes, Trausti is a delicate flower who needs to be coddled and bottle-fed while he snipes one-liners at the rest of us.

At least RVonse had the balls to continue to respond.

Your sarcasm is out of place. You start a thread apparently to ask (no sarcasm) what Trump supporters want for America (though you call them "Trumpers"). But your later behavior indicates you only want to condemn them, not to try to learn what they want. Then, it is unsurprising that Trausti is not interested in telling you what he wants or what he believes Trump supporters generally want. It's not about having balls. It's about the pointlessness of explaining things to someone not interested in learning about them, but only in condemning them.


Do you realize that when you say " At least RVonse had the balls to continue to respond. ", you indicate that you realize that Trump supporters have balls - that is, courage - if they continue to respond to you? If you intended to learn, there would be no courage requirement. Courage is necessary (but not sufficient; they might not want to bother) because you and others are attacking them. If you want to make a thread for the purpose of condemning Trump supporters, I suggest you identify it as such, because while the "Trumper" word suggests you're getting ready to attack them, the part where you say

It's a simple question. Can anyone answer?

Minimal sarcasm, please.

says otherwise, so the intent of the thread as a condemnation thread is not clear beforehand, and get people confused.

 

[ZiprHead]

Your sarcasm is out of place. You start a thread apparently to ask (no sarcasm) what Trump supporters want for America (though you call them "Trumpers"). But your later behavior indicates you only want to condemn them, not to try to learn what they want. Then, it is unsurprising that Trausti is not interested in telling you what he wants or what he believes Trump supporters generally want. It's not about having balls. It's about the pointlessness of explaining things to someone not interested in learning about them, but only in condemning them.


Do you realize that when you say " At least RVonse had the balls to continue to respond. ", you indicate that you realize that Trump supporters have balls - that is, courage - if they continue to respond to you? If you intended to learn, there would be no courage requirement. Courage is necessary (but not sufficient; they might not want to bother) because you and others are attacking them. If you want to make a thread for the purpose of condemning Trump supporters, I suggest you identify it as such, because while the "Trumper" word suggests you're getting ready to attack them, the part where you say

It's a simple question. Can anyone answer?

Minimal sarcasm, please.

says otherwise, so the intent of the thread as a condemnation thread is not clear beforehand, and get people confused.

I expressed amusement, not sarcasm. RV's answers literally made me laugh. I should not be allowed to express that? If you see further down, I was not alone in that sentiment.

I think you're reading into my response much more than was there. And yes, you do seem quite confused.

 

[ZiprHead]

Trump was a not the perfect leader for the populist movement, no argument there. He was just the only leader that could lead the populist movement. Everyone else sounded like a republican or a democrat and the populists wanted different.

"A person is smart. But people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

This is populism in a nutshell.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Your sarcasm is out of place. You start a thread apparently to ask (no sarcasm) what Trump supporters want for America (though you call them "Trumpers"). But your later behavior indicates you only want to condemn them, not to try to learn what they want. Then, it is unsurprising that Trausti is not interested in telling you what he wants or what he believes Trump supporters generally want. It's not about having balls. It's about the pointlessness of explaining things to someone not interested in learning about them, but only in condemning them.


Do you realize that when you say " At least RVonse had the balls to continue to respond. ", you indicate that you realize that Trump supporters have balls - that is, courage - if they continue to respond to you? If you intended to learn, there would be no courage requirement. Courage is necessary (but not sufficient; they might not want to bother) because you and others are attacking them. If you want to make a thread for the purpose of condemning Trump supporters, I suggest you identify it as such, because while the "Trumper" word suggests you're getting ready to attack them, the part where you say

It's a simple question. Can anyone answer?

Minimal sarcasm, please.

says otherwise, so the intent of the thread as a condemnation thread is not clear beforehand, and get people confused.

I expressed amusement, not sarcasm. RV's answers literally made me laugh. I should not be allowed to express that? If you see further down, I was not alone in that sentiment.

I think you're reading into my response much more than was there. And yes, you do seem quite confused.

Not sarcasm, no. I did not say you expressed sarcasm. Rather, the

It's a simple question. Can anyone answer?

Minimal sarcasm, please.

indicates you want to learn/discuss, not to condemn. Whether you should be allowed to laugh at others in this forum is a question I did not address. Rather, I pointed out - as it is obvious - that your behavior later (i.e., after the OP) indicates you did not intend to learn about what Trump supporters wanted for America, but only to condemn Trump supporters. Maybe one could add - to "condemn" - also "laugh at", but that seems to be part of the way in which you express your condemnation. Laughing at RVonse - who seems to be a Trump supporter, and who has interacted with many more Trump supporters than you have, read their opinions, etc. - for saying what he believes Trump supporters want is clearly a way to attack him, and surely not a way of trying to learn about him or other Trump supporters.

Additionally, the fact that you yourself describe RVonse's further replying as having balls is a dead giveaway.

 

[RVonse]

That's what you think trumpers want?

Why do you laugh?

Because in ZiprHead's mind, what I posted was so alien to him it is like seeing "too many clowns in a Volkswagen at the circus". ZiprHead would not know any different either because in his environment he never hears or experiences anything different. So it is no wonder to me that he thought what I said was funny.

The military/security complex using the DNC and the media has been able to do what Stalin did—eliminate the opposition. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, like the print and TV media and NPR, are employed to shut down non-establishment explanations.

And both sides think the other side is being manipulated. The Trumpets think as I do above that the people living in Democratic strongholds are manipulated by what they are exposed to with our monopoly media. And the other side, the Ziprheads believe the Trumpets are being manipulated by a con-man entertainer who is gross and immoral. Neither side can get anywhere to understand each other because they live in completely different worlds.

 

[fromderinside]

Ask yourself: "What correlates with American debt and American interest rates" Is it gold reserve? Nah. Is it military might? Yeah. Trump has no idea.

 

[RVonse]

Ask yourself: "What correlates with American debt and American interest rates" Is it gold reserve? Nah. Is it military might? Yeah. Trump has no idea.

1971. The financialization of the American economy was made possible when the fiat reserve dollar uncoupled with the gold standard in 1971. Before 1971 we had to pay for our military might by exporting gold we had stored in Fort Knox. Before 1971 no countries (including even the US) could maintain a constant deficit with imports vs. exports. But after 1971, the only thing left for the US was to give up was our manufacturing base to other countries. And so the only thing we can do well today is make war, manipulate and borrow fiat currency, and some software entertainment industry.

 

[jab]

In random order (to simulate Trumpthought)...

1. Forts Campbell and Wainwright to be renamed Fort Simon Legree and Fort John Wilkes Booth
2. Hillary in solitary (Leavenworth)
3. The wall completed at a height of 41 feet (to symbolize Trump's maximum chub of 41 mm.) Machine gun towers every 1/8 mile
4. Hillary to be on a diet of pinto beans, soda bread and tap water every anniversary of the 2016 election
5. Weather proof zinc statue of Trump to be installed in the former Rose Garden, at a height of 48 feet (to symbolize the number of sexual assault accusations brought against Trump by very horrible people)
6. Abortion made a felony in all 50 states; soliciting for an abortion carries a penalty, for the woman, of a year's term at a federal breeding facility
7. Reparation payments to descendants of CSA servicemen, to be overseen by the NAAWP
8. Hillary to be denied TV privileges except for Pat Robertson reruns, to be run continuously in the hallway by her cell
9. Department of Education supplanted by the Department of Jesus Studies under the aegis of Christian Caucasians for Orthodox Orthodoxy
10. Pussy-grabbing made an entitlement (for all, not just celebs)
11. Hillary's prison-issued garb to be black-and-white striped jumpsuit, black-and-white striped cloth cap, canvas sport bra, and men's Jockey shorts

Corrections:
6. Abortion (for a fee of under $20,000) made a felony in all 50 states; soliciting for an abortion at any fee level carries a penalty, for a woman, of a year's term at a federal breeding facility, for a man a fine of $10.00, or nothing if the fee level is $20,000+


9. Department of Education supplanted by the Department of Jesus Studies under the aegis of Christian Caucasians for Orthodox Orthodoxy
10. Pussy-grabbing made an entitlement (for all white males, and for all non-white males on non-Caucasian pussies only ; female-on-female pussy contact of any sort is illegal, except when performed for a fee for an audience of men)
11. In any stand your ground situation where both parties claim to have been standing their ground, the conflict shall be judged on a gradated intersectional scale, with demonstrably pure and thoroughly virtuous white females at the top, then white males--sorted by economic and social rank--then all other white females, and so on.

 

[jab]

This thread makes me wish for sci-fi/magic to be real. I'd like a parallel world where both hard left and right could move to their respective planet and live their ideal life.

I would then wait to see how long before they'd come back.

Back?
The right lives to pwn the left. If they don't end up creatingbtheir own leftist party to taunt, they won't come back here, they'll go to the left world.

The left would engage in a whole lot of factional squabbling, conflict between a rational view of things and a sentimental view of the religion of victims, vanguardism, following charismatic leaders, and a failure of many people belonging to one or another victimized group to acknowledge their privilege and prejudice in relation to other victimized groups.

 

[jab]

This thread reminds me of the observation that partisans have little idea of the opposition so they make ridiculous caricatures.

I am sure the irony of that observation is totally lost on you.

There’s no irony; you’re just full of hate.

your opponent's point's proved--the final part of the proof being the simplifying and hyperbolic "just". Simplification and hyperbole are both tools of caricature.

 

[jab]

That's what you think trumpers want?

Why do you laugh? He almost certainly knows a lot more Trump supporters than you do, and a lot better. He is definitely a lot more interested in reading their opinions. I would expect RVonse to be in a much better position to describe what many or even most Trump supporters want than you are, simply because he's dedicated a lot more time and effort to read their websites, the views they defend, etc.

To put it in a different way, how do you think RVonse came up with that reply, if not by using information he got from sites/generally media that support Trump?

By the way, what do you think they want?

A lot of Trump supporters want abortion to be made illegal. A lot want a wider sphere of influence for Christianity in the public and cultural spheres, including in education--see Trump's judicial appointments and his consorting with the likes of Paula White and pretending to be a Christian to hold Trumpers' votes and fealty. Somehow RVonse forgets to include these items in his partial list

 

[jab]

It's not about Trausti's feelings. It's about the truth. It's about what Trump supporters actually want. If they are being misrepresented and you believe it, you end up with false beliefs.

And I've asked Trausti to tell us what he wants instead of sniping from the corner. He's yet to do so.

Given your reply to someone who did explain, it's understandable that Trausti pointed out that the thread misrepresents his views, but chose not to engage. If you look at the exchanges rather than the OP, this thread seems not like an attempt to know about what Trump supporters want for the country, but simply about condemning Trump supporters.

"this thread seems not like. . ." This post seems to exhibit confirmation bias.
For instance, look carefully at posts 57 & 59, the most recent posts, posts just before this one, #60, by you, and explain their connexion to your "seems not like. . .".

 

[jab]

Your sarcasm is out of place. You start a thread apparently to ask (no sarcasm) what Trump supporters want for America (though you call them "Trumpers"). But your later behavior indicates you only want to condemn them, not to try to learn what they want. Then, it is unsurprising that Trausti is not interested in telling you what he wants or what he believes Trump supporters generally want. It's not about having balls. It's about the pointlessness of explaining things to someone not interested in learning about them, but only in condemning them.


Do you realize that when you say " At least RVonse had the balls to continue to respond. ", you indicate that you realize that Trump supporters have balls - that is, courage - if they continue to respond to you? If you intended to learn, there would be no courage requirement. Courage is necessary (but not sufficient; they might not want to bother) because you and others are attacking them. If you want to make a thread for the purpose of condemning Trump supporters, I suggest you identify it as such, because while the "Trumper" word suggests you're getting ready to attack them, the part where you say

It's a simple question. Can anyone answer?

Minimal sarcasm, please.

says otherwise, so the intent of the thread as a condemnation thread is not clear beforehand, and get people confused.

I take "TRumper" to be a Trump devotee, someone caught up in a cult of personality who thinks he's a great human being perhaps blessed and chosen by God; not all Trump supporters, including, for instance the governor and secretary of state of Kansas, Chris Christie, Mike Pence, Mitch McConnell, are true Trumpers.

 

[jab]

I expressed amusement, not sarcasm. RV's answers literally made me laugh. I should not be allowed to express that? If you see further down, I was not alone in that sentiment.

I think you're reading into my response much more than was there. And yes, you do seem quite confused.

Not sarcasm, no. I did not say you expressed sarcasm. Rather, the

It's a simple question. Can anyone answer?

Minimal sarcasm, please.

indicates you want to learn/discuss, not to condemn. Whether you should be allowed to laugh at others in this forum is a question I did not address. Rather, I pointed out - as it is obvious - that your behavior later (i.e., after the OP) indicates you did not intend to learn about what Trump supporters wanted for America, but only to condemn Trump supporters. Maybe one could add - to "condemn" - also "laugh at", but that seems to be part of the way in which you express your condemnation. Laughing at RVonse - who seems to be a Trump supporter, and who has interacted with many more Trump supporters than you have, read their opinions, etc. - for saying what he believes Trump supporters want is clearly a way to attack him, and surely not a way of trying to learn about him or other Trump supporters.

Additionally, the fact that you yourself describe RVonse's further replying as having balls is a dead giveaway.

I prefer my giveaways to be living, or at least less cliched. And humour can be very instructive. Case in point: "Minimal sarcasm, please"--litotes, and in conjunction with the antecedent "Trumper", antiphrasis.