My Husband Supports Trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saudi Arabia follows the ultra-conservative Wahhabi form of Islam, and some outsiders see it as a cause of the international jihadist threat.

What is the common denominator? All followers of Wahhabi Islam propagated by rich Saudis

This is an excellent point, and I wonder if you think there is any similarity to the terrorist attacks by Eric Rudolph and Robert Dear and the ultra-conservative Evangelical Christianity promoted by rich americans as far back as the 30s to counter the New Deal - you know, Libertarian Theology promoted by Bill and Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell and their many mega-church successors?

Apparently Dear wasted no time telling the judge very clearly why he did what he did - I don't know why the authorities in Colorado Springs were so busy being secretive about it (of course I do: they're right wing douchebag LEOs in Colorado Springs, the US Mecca of militaristic Christian nationalists). I wonder how many of them secretly snuck into PP to take advantage of their services?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is fascinating.

What does he like about Trump?

OP, so much sympathy for you. My mom and my dad cancel each other out at the polls every year, but they don't discuss politics at home. I dated a Republican for a long time in my youth and tolerated all kinds of political differences between us. But, in the end, I decided that many of his views were a reflection of large differences in our underlying values (equality vs. misogyny) and our assumptions and perceptions about the world and people around us, and thus, we weren't a good match. Since you're already married, perhaps you'll just have to say explicitly, we'll really have to agree to disagree. If you have kids, I think it's important that you say out loud and repeatedly that you disagree with his views and why. Hopefully, you two can arrive at an agreement that it's better just not to discuss.

If you feel like his political views are a reflection of underlying values that affect you and your marriage, I would focus more on his behavior/actions in the marriage rather than his words -- is he making misogynist/sexist assumptions about who does what? That's a problem you can address without politics.

In the meanwhile, please DO tell more about why you think your husband likes Trump. I can't for the life of me understand this phenomenon.

I'm convinced it's the culmination of years of really suck-ass history teaching across the country. My kids are getting less and less basic civics at the young age, and none of their peers ever read a real newspaper or outlet (and no, BuzzFeed lists do not count as news...) That and a combination of people who really can't contemplate Hillary Clinton for President, which I think has a largely sexist underpinning (even among women detractors....)

I think the main thing he likes is that Trump "speaks his mind." DH found Obama to be a huge disappointment because he talked so much about not being partisan and political, and DH feels liked to. He thinks that, at least with Trump, what you see if what you get. He also things that Trump would be strong on foreign policy and cannot possibly be as extreme as the things he sometimes says given his massive business successes.

On the Muslim thing, he thinks it is overstated since Trump only said temporarily until a system is worked out. He thinks it is hypocritical for people to get so outraged over that one statement when racial profiling is alive and well through America (he's a minority).

One of these things is not like the other.

ahahaha +1

[Anonymous]

Maybe because liberals are effete and weak untermensch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is actually not unconstitutional to selectively control immigration, even based on religion.

Only because the Constitution doesn't apply outside US borders to people who are not US citizens.

It does apply to US Muslims who would be barred re-entry to the US solely on the basis of their religious preference - that would be unconstitutional.

Also, just because something is legal or even not unconstitutional doesn't make it the morally right or smart thing to do. That is something that has been lost on our policymakers in the area of drone warfare, torture, Geneva Conventions and surveillance,etc. in the last 15 years. I attribute that loss of policymaking perspective to the over-reliance on the opinions of lawyers (my own profession, I admit ashamedly), who make arguments about policy on the basis of what is legal and not what is wise, morally right and/or effective.

Fine, but let's not use hyperbole and say that what he proposes is unconstitutional. He didn't suggest barring American Muslims from re-entering; he was talking about immigration.

Can you tell me why drone warfare, specifically, is immoral in your opinion? Does risking an American pilot make it moral to you?

First, to the PP that denies Trump said anything about excluding Muslim U.S. citizens returning from abroad, that may be technically correct, because it was a campaign press release and didn't come out of his mouth, thus he didn't "say" it. But, his campaign "said" it on his behalf, and officially so. A campaign press release said Trump was calling for a "complete and total shutdown" of "Muslims entering" the U.S. See the Trump Website for his 12/7/15 press release in the wake of the San Bernadino killings - https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration. Trump later highlighted the press release on his Twitter feed.

When his campaign was asked by a reporter from The Hill whether his statement included American Muslims abroad, his campaign spokesperson responded by email, "Mr. Trump says, "everyone."" In later broadcast interviews, Trump, apparently realizing the import of his language, walked back his statement and said that it wouldn't apply to U.S. citizens.

I think it's important to remember that his statement was released in the wake of the San Bernadino shooting, which was perpetrated by a U.S. Muslim citizen who committed the act after having seemingly been radicalized during trips abroad and then returned to the U.S. Clearly the implication is that Trump somehow thought that his policy of not allowing Muslims to re-enter the country would prevent such incidents. If he and his campaign didn't consider the nuances and details of his statement prior to release and how they would work in the real world, then, frankly, they're idiots who don't deserve to run a country.

So, I won't use "hyperbole" if you don't deny the factual basis of the claims that Trump "said" he would bar all Muslims. That the extremity of his position only lasted 24 hours because it was shown to be patently unconstitutional if it included barring the return of U.S. citizens, well, that doesn't mean that he and his campaign never said that.


To the other PP:

I don't find drone warfare per se morally objectionable. What I find objectionable is the way in which we choose to conduct drone warfare. Personally, I don't think that our current drone policy is complicit with our Geneva Convention obligations. (Convention obligations which were created in the wake of the biggest, global war of the last century, and which were acceded to by nearly every country because they were deemed a protection both to soldiers and to civilization as a whole upon recognition of the vast damage of war both immediate and long term, when conducted in an unrestrained fashion against civilians.) And, the fact that we risked a pilot to strike the MSF facility in Afghanistan, doesn't make it any more moral either, IMO.

Our loose definition in drone warfare (and other combat decisions) of who is a "combatant," what constitutes acceptable "collateral damage" and our decision to conduct combat missions in the face of multiple safeguard failures (as in the MSF case) are all examples of things that have been legally justified by lawyers, but which, in reality, are not wise or effective decisions in the conduct of war (not even considering whether or not they'e "moral"). As a result, these kinds of "mistakes," rather than protecting us, are actually exacerbating radicalization and hurting us even more over time. Sloppily conducted drone (or general warfare) may have saved us a few pilots or soldiers, but in the long run, it has driven radicalization which has resulted in greater civilian (i.e. U.S. and Western) deaths, not to mention greater civilian and combat casualties in the main continuous conflict zones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is actually not unconstitutional to selectively control immigration, even based on religion.

Only because the Constitution doesn't apply outside US borders to people who are not US citizens.

It does apply to US Muslims who would be barred re-entry to the US solely on the basis of their religious preference - that would be unconstitutional.

Also, just because something is legal or even not unconstitutional doesn't make it the morally right or smart thing to do. That is something that has been lost on our policymakers in the area of drone warfare, torture, Geneva Conventions and surveillance,etc. in the last 15 years. I attribute that loss of policymaking perspective to the over-reliance on the opinions of lawyers (my own profession, I admit ashamedly), who make arguments about policy on the basis of what is legal and not what is wise, morally right and/or effective.

Fine, but let's not use hyperbole and say that what he proposes is unconstitutional. He didn't suggest barring American Muslims from re-entering; he was talking about immigration.

Can you tell me why drone warfare, specifically, is immoral in your opinion? Does risking an American pilot make it moral to you?

First, to the PP that denies Trump said anything about excluding Muslim U.S. citizens returning from abroad, that may be technically correct, because it was a campaign press release and didn't come out of his mouth, thus he didn't "say" it. But, his campaign "said" it on his behalf, and officially so. A campaign press release said Trump was calling for a "complete and total shutdown" of "Muslims entering" the U.S. See the Trump Website for his 12/7/15 press release in the wake of the San Bernadino killings - https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration. Trump later highlighted the press release on his Twitter feed.

When his campaign was asked by a reporter from The Hill whether his statement included American Muslims abroad, his campaign spokesperson responded by email, "Mr. Trump says, "everyone."" In later broadcast interviews, Trump, apparently realizing the import of his language, walked back his statement and said that it wouldn't apply to U.S. citizens.

I think it's important to remember that his statement was released in the wake of the San Bernadino shooting, which was perpetrated by a U.S. Muslim citizen who committed the act after having seemingly been radicalized during trips abroad and then returned to the U.S. Clearly the implication is that Trump somehow thought that his policy of not allowing Muslims to re-enter the country would prevent such incidents. If he and his campaign didn't consider the nuances and details of his statement prior to release and how they would work in the real world, then, frankly, they're idiots who don't deserve to run a country.

So, I won't use "hyperbole" if you don't deny the factual basis of the claims that Trump "said" he would bar all Muslims. That the extremity of his position only lasted 24 hours because it was shown to be patently unconstitutional if it included barring the return of U.S. citizens, well, that doesn't mean that he and his campaign never said that.


To the other PP:

I don't find drone warfare per se morally objectionable. What I find objectionable is the way in which we choose to conduct drone warfare. Personally, I don't think that our current drone policy is complicit with our Geneva Convention obligations. (Convention obligations which were created in the wake of the biggest, global war of the last century, and which were acceded to by nearly every country because they were deemed a protection both to soldiers and to civilization as a whole upon recognition of the vast damage of war both immediate and long term, when conducted in an unrestrained fashion against civilians.) And, the fact that we risked a pilot to strike the MSF facility in Afghanistan, doesn't make it any more moral either, IMO.

Our loose definition in drone warfare (and other combat decisions) of who is a "combatant," what constitutes acceptable "collateral damage" and our decision to conduct combat missions in the face of multiple safeguard failures (as in the MSF case) are all examples of things that have been legally justified by lawyers, but which, in reality, are not wise or effective decisions in the conduct of war (not even considering whether or not they'e "moral"). As a result, these kinds of "mistakes," rather than protecting us, are actually exacerbating radicalization and hurting us even more over time. Sloppily conducted drone (or general warfare) may have saved us a few pilots or soldiers, but in the long run, it has driven radicalization which has resulted in greater civilian (i.e. U.S. and Western) deaths, not to mention greater civilian and combat casualties in the main continuous conflict zones.

Sorry that's way too many words for these folks. You need to sum up your argument in a pithy, facile, meaningless one liner, like "Make America great again"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Politically I am not on Trump's side at all. Number One: He is a Republican. Number Two: He is an ugly, disrespectful man who mocks the disabled, women and anyone he can without realizing he would be a zero if he wasn't sitting on so much ca$h. Trust me, if Mr. Trump was a manager at Burger King he would be throwing dollar bills at beautiful women after work in the strip club vs. being married to one of them. Number Three: He thinks he is a rich white man thus making him superior to anyone who isn't. And he is a tad bit racist too.

However, he has a point. If no one agreed with him, he wouldn't even be in the running. He has topped the polls most of the time so Americans feel his views, just most are afraid to make them public. They like to step back and let the "Donald"do all the talking.

Your husband may be one of these people. He may be fed up with illegal immigration and think we should be more strict.

He also may be fed up with all the recent terrorist situations and need someone to look up to who can make America great.

Personally, I as a Democrat would love this type of dynamic.

I bet you and your husband must have the best and most interesting dinner conversations.

While I cannot stand Trump, I wouldn't necessarily rule out anyone who did.

Except that his idea of what would "make America great" is actually not going to make America great. Put up a wall and declare open season on hunting Mexicans who approach the wall? Kick out all illegal immigrants immediately? Restrict entry to the US to only non-Muslims? Make American Muslims carry documents identifying their religion? How do those things make America anything but xenophobic and racist?

Moreover, I have yet to hear anything that resembles an actual policy for other pressing problems that the country is facing. Immigration is not the only problem this country is facing, but it does seem to be the only one that Trump cares about. He's running for president - not Immigration Cop In Chief.

These all sound great and I'm a Democrat. Not for barring American Muslims but foreign Muslims? Sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That pretty much says it all. How do I even deal? He has gotten more and more conservative as the dems have moved further and further left, but this is just beyond the pale. I dread talking to him.

Well, since Trump's appeal is entirely and solely white supremacy, divorce. It's not going to get milder; if he's conservative now, imagine how nasty he'll be when Crazy Old Man Syndrome kicks in!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats have moved further and further RIGHT. I'm sorry for your awful situation.

Sure they have - and I have a nice bridge to sell you the deed to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Divorce him. Seriously. I couldn't stay married to someone with those values.

+1

I'm about to uninvite my ILs for the holidays. I don't want my children exposed to that kind of hate and ignorance.

This attitude right here is part of the reason Trump is having success.

As a college professor, I agree 100% with this. PP is one of those "don't expose me to ideas I disagree with" types.... the coddling students I teach on a daily basis who don't want rigorous arguments challenging them to defend their views.

As a college professor, I would hope that you are teaching your students that there is a meaningful difference between opinions that are actively xenophobic and based on lies and opinions that are simply different from their own. Trump has repeatedly lied about things that are verifiable, suggested policies that are unconstitutional, made comments that are blatantly racist, and shown absolutely no remorse for this behavior. I would be utterly delighted to not be exposed to his ideas - not just because I disagree with them, but because they are antithetical to pretty much everything I believe - and if I found out that a close friend or relative agreed with those things, I would not want to associate with that person any longer.

+1000

I'm the PP who might uninvite ILs over this. We have a very diverse extended family - politics, religion, race, nationalities, etc. - and usually we do have healthy discussions about world topics with a variety of viewpoints. ILs have been leaning way way left in recent years and may have gone over the line in terms of ethics in my mind. My DH is a Republican (moderate) and he was shocked by what they said at Thanksgiving. Just like I said earlier, I don't want my children exposed to that. It's just not a difference of opinion, it's pure hatred of others.

Do you mean your ILs are leaning way right? I can't imagine where getting further left can get you into the realm of "pure hatred."

Right - because the left is so accepting of different viewpoints. In my experience, it's the avowed leftists that are the least tolerant of dissent from the narrative. You can't even have a rational discussion about Obama's failings with most of them - he is untouchable in their minds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Divorce him. Seriously. I couldn't stay married to someone with those values.

+1

I'm about to uninvite my ILs for the holidays. I don't want my children exposed to that kind of hate and ignorance.

+2!

Trump's two steps away from full blown Nazi at this point.[u]

It's not funny. It's hideous.

You and your DH are in my prayers.

And this thread has jumped the shark. Do you even know what a Nazi is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Democrats have moved further and further RIGHT. I'm sorry for your awful situation.


Sure they have - and I have a nice bridge to sell you the deed to.

They have. Obama would have been a conservative back in the day. Boehner came in with newt and was a true conservative...but he is too liberal now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Democrats have moved further and further RIGHT. I'm sorry for your awful situation.


Sure they have - and I have a nice bridge to sell you the deed to.

They have. Obama would have been a conservative back in the day. Boehner came in with newt and was a true conservative...but he is too liberal now.

Orrin Hatch used to be on the fringe of the right wing. Now he gets a primary challenge from the right. Democrats just aren't doing that to their candidates very much -- particularly the few far left candidates they have.

[Anonymous]

I'd be concerned that he is comfortable with lying. If my spouse supported some random conservative with whom I disagree -- say, Ted Cruz-- it would not be comfortable and we'd have to have a conversation about values. But with Trump, it's more than that. It's about lying, blaming other people when you're caught, ridiculing disability, and bullying. I couldn't be married to a man who admired a bully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd be concerned that he is comfortable with lying. If my spouse supported some random conservative with whom I disagree -- say, Ted Cruz-- it would not be comfortable and we'd have to have a conversation about values. But with Trump, it's more than that. It's about lying, blaming other people when you're caught, ridiculing disability, and bullying. I couldn't be married to a man who admired a bully.

You should try to get a gay guy to switch teams!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Divorce him. Seriously. I couldn't stay married to someone with those values.

+1

I'm about to uninvite my ILs for the holidays. I don't want my children exposed to that kind of hate and ignorance.

This attitude right here is part of the reason Trump is having success.

As a college professor, I agree 100% with this. PP is one of those "don't expose me to ideas I disagree with" types.... the coddling students I teach on a daily basis who don't want rigorous arguments challenging them to defend their views.

I'm assuming pp's children aren't college students. The thing here is, 1) Trump's views aren't valid or even worth challenging. 2) It is valid to want to shield young and impressionable children from hateful bigotry.

Now, if they're high school age or something, yes, perfectly fine to expose them so as better to explain Trump's traitorous behavior and they irony of people rallying around a candidate for president who clearly hates America. It's really strange. Has any presidential candidate EVER polled in the 30s by declaring that America is not great?