> He's not trustworthy, he's a horrible manager of people
Do you have any examples of this?
> And he never pays off on what he promises
Are you speaking about his campaign promises in particular? If so he lost so I'm not sure what you were expecting.
> YangGang social media
Eh. The "but some of his supporters are jerks" argument is emotionally potent but doesn't contain much substance in my opinion. Jerks are often very outspoken no matter what their opinions are. I'm not sure why that has anything to do with the person they're supporting. I remember people doing this with Bernie also.
> This sort revolutionary fervor is generally counterproductive
Do you have evidence for this claim? because to my mind, the exact opposite is true.
I completely agree with OP. I'd prefer Bernie but would take Trump. Some other users were quite rude saying you have to be an idiot to think a rich person would help poor people. I think that's a pretty silly statement, take Bill Gates for instance.
IMHO, members of HN are the vocal minority in their outright hatred for Trump. He will most certainly win the nomination if he goes against Hillary.
Do they? I don’t. I also know many people with many differing views and they don’t either. This looks again like you are projecting you opinion on the majority of people with no data to support it.
>> Honestly it's people like you who equate Trump supports with terrible people (or who equate Hillary supporters with terrible people) that are the problem.
I very plainly said I don't do this (first sentence). The rest of your post is a rant based on you missing that, so I'm going to ignore it.
There are many Trump supporters who are more critical of him than I am, and I'm fine with those people. I don't really understand them, but they seem to get that a lot of his positions and comments are bad.
> The campaign team was full of fools who squandered almost every good turn received
He also fired them one day before dropping out of the race just to send a message. I don't know that that's great leadership, but to me that shows he had some idea of what was going on at least.
What are you basing that on? Just because you don't agree with a person politically doesn't mean you should feel free to partake in character assassination.
>I find it impossible to discuss anything negative about Trump with his supporters
You can be negative about Trump pretty much everywhere and nobody would bat an eye. You can even spew lies like him peeing on proustites and it will be on the news nonstop for years.
Many people who like Trump see that sort of cultish behavior against him and turn around and defend Trump on everything. If people were more reasonable with their negativity of Trump, I have no doubt most Trump supporters would admit Trump's flaws.
> If it's based solely upon his support of Donald Trump, this is a ridiculous statement.
You're projecting. At least let him explain his reasoning. Creating your own fictional version which you can denounce prior that that explanation doesn't really help the conversation.
> Sam, just so you know, many of your sentences could exchange Trump for Hillary and be exactly what Trump supporters I know say. Especially this one:
> > [Hillary] shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency, and I fear for national security if [she] becomes our president.
Except one is based on a set of statements made by the candidate and his own campaign, the other is mostly built upon the massive pile of conspiracy theories and mountains-made-from-molehills that constitute the argument against Hillary.
> Used to be a fan of him until he actively spreading lies of US election. Turned me off.
You have to look at things from the perspective of those people. They're not part of your domestic political faction, they're dissidents from a foreign country. Western politicians have been mealy mouthed and soft for decades with regards to the PRC. As far as I know, Trump was the first American president to take a hard line against them in my conscious lifetime (even though his motives were unprincipled), and they probably decided to throw their weight behind him lest things return to the status quo and they lose hope for the thing they really care about: China.
>To suggest that Trump has 'very limited' political experience when he's been rubbing shoulders with the country's political elites for a few decades is simply disingenuous.
To argue that he's remotely as experienced as Hilary Clinton is simply disingenuous.
>gotchange's whole point is about expecting more from politicians, and asking why the expectations are lowered on the Trump side.
gotchange's whole point was that somehow, something (not sure what) is biased against Hilary here. Trump is being skewered about this on every channel, on every website. What more do you want? This is a massive scandal, and I'm sure there's more to come.
>gotchange's point is that some people give Trump a lower bar of expectations because he's an 'outsider' or 'new at this'
No, my expectations are lower for Trump because he has a history of being a buffoon. But you do realize there's a difference between "expectation" and "acceptance"?
For what it's worth, I think they are both terrible candidates. I have no idea how Trump got this far, but I don't think there's another candidate that Hilary could have possibly beat.
> Clinton actually was the better choice; in fact, technically one of the most qualified candidates in history
Personally speaking, I did not like how she and her colluders ran down the Sanders campaign. Their characterization of his supporters as sexists and racist was fundamentally, profoundly dishonest. They could have addressed his policy proposals, but went the other way.
This led me to understand that this would be what we could expect from her Presidency. Before that, I was open to Clinton.
After her loss, I had been hoping for a Democratic party introspection about the way they had run this campaign and a house cleaning. Instead, we got enablers, diversion and outright lies. A shuffling of the worst actors, but no purge. Extremely disappointing. We still have never had an honest accounting for that debacle, and I remember and distrust every news outlet and commentator that repeated those lies.
I want to be clear that I did not vote for Trump, either. But he was not the worst President in my living memory. That honor goes to the President who lied to the public in order to get us into two (2) ruinous, useless wars and did not adequately prepare successfully for the occupation. Honestly, not having tentacles throughout government is a bonus, to my mind.
> Most of Trump's supporters don't accept that he's racist, or generally sexist, or the other charges being made.
I wonder if we have enough evidence to reach that conclusion? Respectfully, I'm not sure you've talked to enough supporters to generalize about the whole group.
Speaking only for myself, if I end up voting for one of those two, it will be for Trump. I accept the strong possibility that every one of the negative personality traits he's shown are genuine.
I think in policy matters he's basically a wildcard. But I find Clinton so undesirable as a candidate that I would prefer a wildcard.
Does this mean I approve in any way of Trump's apparent personal characteristics? Absolutely not.
> To them, supporting Trump and Clinton are equally bad
No, to us destroying a person for their political views is disgusting, even if we disagree with them.
A person should not lose their job, their status on a board, their inclusion in an event, etc. based on who they decide to support politically.
That's disgusting and people who support that sort of witch hunt should be ashamed of themselves.
I vehemently disagree with his choice of who to support during this election, but I find the calls for his head even more repugnant. That sort of intolerance should have no place in a civil society.
Do you have any examples of this?
> And he never pays off on what he promises
Are you speaking about his campaign promises in particular? If so he lost so I'm not sure what you were expecting.
> YangGang social media
Eh. The "but some of his supporters are jerks" argument is emotionally potent but doesn't contain much substance in my opinion. Jerks are often very outspoken no matter what their opinions are. I'm not sure why that has anything to do with the person they're supporting. I remember people doing this with Bernie also.
reply