Who Will Be the LAST Trump Supporting Poster to Be Banned?

[garbon]

So you are left with either vague generalities, or straight out trolling. Both of which you have done and admirable job of mastering, so kudos on that.

I don't know. His trolls garner attention but they don't (apart from V ) generate any anger or outrage.

[LaCroix]

I suppose one might have bad information and your rational analysis just leads to wrong results

yup. propaganda outlets imo only goes so far. some people don't listen to conservative right-wing propaganda and yet they still voted for trump, because he seemed like he honestly wanted to help them. someone I work with is very smart, yet she likes trump in part because he's bringing the government back to the people -- she wants less government. she doesn't care for propaganda outlets, rather she just lacks an informed opinion about these sorts of things. she's from a rural area and hears what most everyone around her says

[Valmy]

she doesn't care for propaganda outlets, rather she just lacks an informed opinion about these sorts of things. she's from a rural area and hears what most everyone around her says

Right. Well it all kind of gets out there anyway doesn't it?

How is Trump bringing government back to the people? How is he for less government? He seems to want to either grow the government or keep it the same everywhere. The only place he wants less if with regulations, but generally when I talk to people about regulations they seem to be for all the specific regulations just against regulations in some sort of weird general sense.

[Berkut]

That is certainly true, but it doesn't explain why YOU are his #1 cheerleader.

Do YOU believe he is going to help you? Of course not. Does spicey? Of course not.

You like him because he shits on the people you like to shit on. The "others" the Muslims, or immigrants, or brown people, or intellectuals.

Because once you strip away the rational reasons, that is all that is left - the irrational bigotry. I can believe that there are plenty of people who might support him because on the surface he claims they will help them, and they don't look any further than that. That clearly does not apply to anyone spending any effort at all to understand the election, so that out is not available to you and your Trumpenfuhrer friends.

I support the President of these United States, because I love America. my question to you is why don't you support trump?

And right on cue, here comes the troll response...

[mongers]

That is certainly true, but it doesn't explain why YOU are his #1 cheerleader.

Do YOU believe he is going to help you? Of course not. Does spicey? Of course not.

You like him because he shits on the people you like to shit on. The "others" the Muslims, or immigrants, or brown people, or intellectuals.

Because once you strip away the rational reasons, that is all that is left - the irrational bigotry. I can believe that there are plenty of people who might support him because on the surface he claims they will help them, and they don't look any further than that. That clearly does not apply to anyone spending any effort at all to understand the election, so that out is not available to you and your Trumpenfuhrer friends.

I support the President of these United States, because I love America. my question to you is why don't you support trump?

Well that's a slam-dunk, but I'm not sure where you're coming from with that is it 'my country right or wrong' or more along the lines of 'patriotism being the last refuge of a scoundrel' ?

[Valmy]

Maybe LaCroix is just really loyal to the President as an office and institution.

Shame everybody who ever gets elected is Hitler.

[grumbler]

Reading, let alone trying to understand his posts is a terrible waste of time.

But they are very funny.  He's either hilariously arrogant, or else playing a troll who is hilariously arrogant.

[grumbler]

He knows how to play the media. They were his campaign team the whole time.

He's a creation of the media.  Of course, he knows how to get the media to pay attention to him.  Combine his despicable behavior designed to get people to pay attention to him with his shtick about how everything bad written about him is a lie written by ignorant and jealous opponents, and he has the best of all possible worlds in terms of appealing to the clueless masses.

[Oexmelin]

Maybe LaCroix is just really loyal to the President as an office and institution.

Shame everybody who ever gets elected is Hitler.

Trump is not Hitler. But America is weirdly reminiscent of Weimar.

[viper37]

you can have rational, objective reasoning for wanting to ban immigrants,

No, not really.  Not in the occidental world, at least.  Controlling the flow of migrants, reducing the number of immigrants received to match the resources allocated to them, yes.  An outright ban?  Not rational by a thousand mile.

and you can have rational, objective reasoning for not wanting to ban immigrants.

Yes, of course.  As we have seen this morning, many large businesses in the US require immigrants to function properly.  They are PhDs, assistants to researchers, qualified and unqualified workers, they take the jobs don't do because they don't want to study or they think themselves to good for the job.
And I can make the same observation in Quebec and Canada.  And France, and England, and Germany.

you can think the former is terrible and be right, and someone else can think the latter is terrible and be right.

I haven't seen any rational argument for an outright ban of immigrants from the Trump's team.  Well, let me restate that: I haven't seen any argument at all.

for example, banning immigrants from these seven countries increases job availability for americans and safety for americans. both are true.

They might be, but you have not made the demonstration they are.  I can say "all pigs can fly, they just forgot how" and claim it is true.  It does not make it true until I can provide evidence.

the extent of (1) jobs becoming available for americans and (2) increased safety for americans might be minimal, but the rational, objective reasoning still exists.

You need qualified people available in the location the jobs are.  If Google needs a PhD in physics in Nevada and Microsoft requires a mathematician in Seattle, an unqualified unemployed worker in North Carolina is not suitable for any of these jobs.

I always receive a ton of applications when I advertise a job.  Not many are qualified.  Among the guys my father hired, I have 3 or 4 who can barely write their name.  Some of them fail a 6th grade qualification exam in literacy.  What am I supposed to do with them?  They can barely use a smartphone, let alone a tablet.  They can't read plans.  They can't understand properly the notes on a plan.  I can't leave them alone to work, I need someone by their side telling them what to do every step of the way.  They cost me close to 70$/hr.  Why should I keep them instead of a Columbian who can do the job better than them for the same price?   The only reason some of these guys have a job is because of the laws governing the construction industry.  Otherwise, they'd be out of a job.

people use the facts available to them to reason all sorts of things.

Most people use their feelings, not facts. The Facebook thread is proof of that.  People accept "facts" that conform to their views, and they do not really seek to double-check them, no matter the source.  That's how fake news are spread.
I see a lof of false claims about the cost of refugees being spread around on Facebook.  Even when you point to these people that it's a fake, they still refuse to believe it, because their instinct is to distrust the foreigners.  That is not rational behavior.

look at some people here who think america is actually becoming totalitarian -- I don't think their thought process is wrong, even if they are wrong. I don't think failing to consider certain factors or having too few facts available means the reasoning is irrational

It's not about being wrong or right, it's about the thought process you use to justifiy your position.
Some supporters of the war on Iraq in 2003 were right.  Some opponents of the war were also right.  There was evidence that Saddam was actively hiding WMDs.  There was evidence the intervention would destabilize the area too.
Both were rational arguments.
In the end however, irrational arguments prevailed on both side and created a mess.

[viper37]

because he seemed like he honestly wanted to help them.

how is naive equals rational in your world?

[LaCroix]

viper, is your position on quebec formed from irrational reasoning? if you let the majority decide what's irrational, you'll be deemed irrational    .    .    .    .

[MadImmortalMan]

Maybe LaCroix is just really loyal to the President as an office and institution.

Shame everybody who ever gets elected is Hitler.

Trump is not Hitler. But America is weirdly reminiscent of Weimar.

Let me know when the hyperinflation is about to hit.

[Oexmelin]

Let me know when the hyperinflation is about to hit.

There is more to Weimar than hyperinflation, and longer to Weimar than the immediate prior of the Nazis. There was the deepening rift between the Berlin cultural avant-garde and the reactionary culture of provincial towns; the way such a rift contributed to ascribe to the left a form of degeneracy, and betrayal, of the grandeur of eternal Germany. There was the mistrust of cosmopolitanism, the disaffection in institutions.

In the end, historical analogs are always imperfect. This is why the old cliché about the "lessons of history" is so tired, and so wrong. If we look to history to find a roadmap to the future, we will not find it. But if those analogs help us think the present, they may serve a point. Hyperinflation further fragilized an already fragile Republic, and contributed to deny legitimacy to its leaders, and institutions. It would not be such a stretch, I think, to imagine that a terrorist attack would fragilize American institutions.

[Razgovory]

On the other hand history as a road map to the present seems to work.