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

[SimpleDon]

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.

RVonse cites not allowing judicial interpretation, however, the Constitution clearly not only allows this but the phrase "in Law and Equality" below allows for judicial made law, i.e. common law, also known as case law, a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts. This is the legal system that they inherited from England so it is understandable that they would continue to use it.

Article III, Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;..

It also allows judicial interpretation of the Constitution itself.

The Constitution has proven to be long-lived and a flexible foundation for our laws because it allows interpretation, is the product of many different compromises, and is ambiguous and vague in equal measures. It isn't suitable for day to day use as law.

I can't credit Trumpists with fealty to the Constitution when they try to interrupt and overturn the Constitutionally correct election of the president by attacking and trashing the Capitol, fatally injuring a Capitol policeman in the process.

I can't credit Trumpists, conservatives, libertarians, etc. with much of a grasp on reality. They are the products of many years of being lied to, starting with the obvious one that "the government is the problem." Anarchism is not working out too well for us, is it?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm pretty sure recent events have thoroughly answered OP's question.

 

[Gospel]

This is easy. Just look at everything Jesus Christ said and do the opposite. That's what the Trumper's vision of the country is. For example

Jesus “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” [Matthew 5:9 KJV]

Homie was all about keeping the peace. Trump didn't get us into any wars so I guess that's a plus for the conservatives backing him however in recent history they've had a more militaristic foreign policy than democrat's.

Jesus “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” [Luke 6:41 KJV]

Dude is anti hypocrisy. Conservatives are pro whataboutism.

Jesus: “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Matthew 7:1-2 KJV]

He basically says don't judge people. Conservatives judge everyone in the US that is not a part of their group and collectively enforce said judgements VIA things like abortion & marriage laws.

Jesus “Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?” [Matthew 6:26]

Which is more believable? Jesus smoked a spliff & put on a hippie shirt before making this statement or than he dawned a MAGA hat and waived a Trump 2021 flag.

Jesus: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.” [John 13:16 KJV]

He promotes an egalitarian society. Conservatives want a society where the Rich are empowered to secure freedom for the poor.

I'd go on but I think you catch my drift.

Edit: Ok that last one may be misunderstood. In other words if the Rich are to serve the poor then they are not greater than those they serve. Conservatives clearly think better of the rich than the poor as it reflects in their fiscal policy. Ya know, easy to get tax cuts for the rich than it is to raise the minimum wage sort of stuff.

 

[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 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.

By that definition Pence and McConnell are not Trumpers, I and I seriously doubt Christie is. McConnell had an alliance with Trump. What he wanted (and he got) were the judges. Pence probably also wanted that, and prepare the road for a presidential run (didn't work out). Christie also has his own agenda.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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

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.

Oh, so you are saying he was saying he wanted sarcasm?

If so, that was unclear. At any rate, RVonse tried to reply in a serious and civil manner. And he got attacked by it, even though no good reasons were given.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

RVonse cites not allowing judicial interpretation, however, the Constitution clearly not only allows this but the phrase "in Law and Equality" below allows for judicial made law, i.e. common law, also known as case law, a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts. This is the legal system that they inherited from England so it is understandable that they would continue to use it.

RVonse does not say no judicial interpretation, or no common law. It says " closely follow what is actually written in our Constitution ". From what I've read from conservatives and from Trump supporters, usually that means that they want the following:

1. That the words in the Constitution be undestood by the meaning they had at the time it was passed (same for amendments), save for specific definitions to the contrary.
2. That the government refrain from violating the Constitution.

The Constitution has proven to be long-lived and a flexible foundation for our laws because it allows interpretation, is the product of many different compromises, and is ambiguous and vague in equal measures. It isn't suitable for day to day use as law.

What do you mean by "allows interpretation"?

A change in the meaning of the words is not one of the procedures established for the amendment of the Constitution. Other than that, I do not see the problem.

I can't credit Trumpists with fealty to the Constitution when they try to interrupt and overturn the Constitutionally correct election of the president by attacking and trashing the Capitol, fatally injuring a Capitol policeman in the process.

Two points:

1. Most Trump supporters did not take part in the attack.
2. Those who did, and many, many others, do not know that that was a Constitutionally correct election. They believe it was not, but that there was massive fraud. We should not conflate delusion with malice.

I can't credit Trumpists, conservatives, libertarians, etc. with much of a grasp on reality. They are the products of many years of being lied to, starting with the obvious one that "the government is the problem." Anarchism is not working out too well for us, is it?

Conservatives, Trump supporters, and libertarians, like nearly all humans, have a very good grasp of reality in daily lives, e.g., you can get food in the supermarket, you can flip a switch and the light is on, things like that. On the other hand, like Catholics, Marxist, Woke, Muslims, etc., they tend to lose contact with reality in the specific cases in which their ideology/religion gets in the way. It's bad. But it's not a particular characteristic of people on the groups you describe. It's a characteristic of ideological/religious commitment.

 

[Worldtraveller]

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

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.

Oh, so you are saying he was saying he wanted sarcasm?

If so, that was unclear. At any rate, RVonse tried to reply in a serious and civil manner. And he got attacked by it, even though no good reasons were given.

He wasn't attacked. He was, at worst, laughed at for saying something completely disassociated from reality.

Happens a lot around here.

Especially to him for some reason. I won't speculate as to why.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What is the bullies’ vision of the schoolyard if they had their way?

 

[Jarhyn]

What is the bullies’ vision of the schoolyard if they had their way?

Lord of the Flies?