2 Answers sorted by
50
I like Sam Harris's description (from The Key to Trump's Appeal - Episode #224):
One thing that Trump never communicates, and cannot possibly communicate, is a sense of his moral superiority. The man is totally without sanctimony. Even when his every utterance is purposed toward self-aggrandizement. Even when he appears to be denigrating his supporters. Even when he is calling himself a genius, he is never actually communicating that he is better than you, more enlightened, more decent, because he's not, and everyone knows it.
The man is just a bundle of sin and gore. And he never pretends to be anything more. Perhaps more importantly, he never even aspires to be anything more. And because of this, because he is never really judging you, he cannot possibly judge you, he offers a truly safe space for human frailty and hypocrisy and self-doubt. He offers what no priest can credibly offer, a total expiation of shame. His personal shamelessness is a kind of spiritual balm. Trump is fat Jesus. He's grab-'em-by-the-pussy Jesus. He's I'll-eat-nothing-but-cheeseburgers-if-I-want-to Jesus. He's I-want-to-punch-them-in-the-face Jesus. He's go-back-to-your-shithole-countries Jesus. He's no-apologies Jesus.
And now consider the other half of this image, what are we getting from the Left? We're getting exactly the opposite message. Pure sanctimony. Pure judgement. You are not good enough. You're guilty, not only for your own sins, but the sins of your fathers. The crimes of slavery and colonialism are on your head. And if you're a cis-white-heterosexual male—which we know is the absolute core of Trump's support—you're a racist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, sexist barbarian. Tear down those statues, and bend the fucking knee. It's the juxtaposition between those two messages that is so powerful.
This sounds reasonable to me, and would adequately explain my support in 2016.
But since then, he has done something that surprised me: he stood by Brett Kavanaugh. At the cost of losing the House in the midterms, Trump backed him. I don't think any other Republican politician (at least at the time) would have done that. Neither side talks about this anymore, but I consider this the single best thing he did in office.
From a policy perspective, I generally like the decisions of his Supreme Court picks. I don't like his tariffs, but think the Democrats' policies are worse. I like his isolationism, but I don't expect it'd be implemented.
Oh, and I'm open. Respond however you want.
Just one question, when he tried to steal the election using fake electors in 2020, do you think that was bad?
31
Not from the US either. I'd be far too biased if I were to express my personal stance, as well. Yet as far as irrationality goes, a few things stand out:
- To quote Eliezer himself: politics is the mind killer. Even more so, when the general population doesn't seem to be either aware of, or particularly concerned with, the ease it is swept by the tidal waves of their respective tribal call to arms with.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9weLK2AJ9JEt2Tt8f/politics-is-the-mind-killer
- For a rather substantial portion of it (at least, to an outsider's perspective - which very well may be as distorted as it can possibly be), the question seems to have less to do with Harris or Trump as candidates, or their policies. Much more: with what they claim to stand for.
Harris represents the system. She's been part of the establishment for as long as she's been on the radar of the public. She's a woman. She's Hispanic. She's a Democrat. She's pro all the minorities. Thrilling start for any PR team!
Trump is the embodiment of the exact opposite. He's the anti-system, anti-bureaucracy, anti-spending, anti-NATO. Pro back-in-the-day.
"Make all things great again".
Harris is riding a wave of (rather questionable, accountability-avoidant, no-interviews-please?) trust by the most progressive portion of the population in that their voices have been heard, and the changes they (alongside the minorities they are allegedly protecting) expect are just around the corner. As long as Harris wins.
Trump is riding a wave of discontent. Of the dissatisfaction with the status quo, with the establishment, with the MIC, with politicians - everything a typical, down-to-earth, quid-pro-quo American has likely grown to despise.
Harris = trust us, we are going to change. Trump = trust me, they are lying to you again.
The growing gap in between concerns of the left and the centrists/right certainly doesn't help. Yet a more fundamental belief in one's ability to actively influence to one's benefit, on one side; and ever increasing distrust towards, the system as a whole, on the other one; doesn't seems to be the least significant of a factor here.
Trump has certainly contributed to the amount of distrust the latter are now feeling, of course. Though I'm personally struggling to say whether this was due to his positioning alone, or (at least in part) thanks to an increasingly larger portions of the "machine" actively weaponizing more and more of its metaphorical antibodies against the threat of his highly unwarranted "invasion".
- Lastly, differences in acting styles. I'm not sure I'll ever be able to take a US politician's self-expression at a face value given all that's transpired over the last decade, so forgive me that particular term.
Trump is a celebrity. He's honed his skills as a public figure quite well while running his empire. He's also lived through enough controversies and humiliations to develop his own style, which he's likely only refined further with "The Apprentice".
To stay a celebrity, you have to continue supplying people with what they expect from you. Here, you can either choose to passively play into trendy people's whims. Or to craft an image, conditioning people to expect a certain "shtick".
What has he conditioned people to expect, over the decades in real estate and later - show-biz?
One, larger-than-life, Trump-Tower-'esque show.
To create one, you need a central theme. You can't orchestrate it around 6-hours long debates on contentious issues without an immediate, visceral, instant response from the public.
What about a catchy slogan? Yes, please.
"Make America Great Again", it is.
What about a Big Brother as an enemy? Done.
A fascinating side effect / self-fulfilling prophecy here, in particular. The more he's baiting / provoking / exposing / calling out the establishment, the more compelled this last one feels to adopt increasingly Big-Brother'esque tactics in direct response to his shenanigans.
Those, who have originally anchored him as a "threat to democracy" would then get even more polarized towards the "he's the next Hitler" part of the spectrum. The ones who already resonate with his MAGA performance grow to support him even more, as more and more of their own doubts, concerns, and suspicions come to life.
Combine all three points with a more traditional, conservative, occasionally: God-fearing perspective; concern about Biden's cognitive decline supported by Harris & Co enthusiastic conviction in him still being as sharp as ever, (virtually completely?) unattended border situation - and you'll probably get yourself a rather coherent picture of a Trumpist.
How much of it is pro-MAGA and "Trump will save us all" vs "Biden and Harris just have to go"?
No idea, to be completely honest.
Completely open to having all of my "arguments" torn to shreds, of course. The sole fact there is such a perfectly civil, patient, non-hostile discussion taking place on topic of this sort has already been an incredible sight to witness.
I certainly don't think that Trump is great. He has an erratic personality, poor focus, and lies far more frequently than the average politician. That said, on most issues I care about I expect him to perform better than Harris:
Economy.
I don’t know any historical precedent when attempts to reduce inflation via price controls did not result in a costly failure. I would appreciate it if you could point me to a contrary example.
Immigration.
I believe that mass immigration of uneducated people would negatively affect the economy and the political system of the country.
Individual liberties
In recent decades, the capture of government agencies and academic institutions by progressive ideology has led to severe restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. I don’t know if Trump would be able to reverse this trend but at least I don’t expect him to make it worse.
Feel free to argue with these points or to give your own.
I can argue some:
- Economy Well that obviously depends on what you mean with "price controls". None of the candidates give that much details on their economic policies, but Harris has mostly focused on anti-price gouging legislation. Now maybe you disagree with this legislation, but you have to compare it to Trumps economic policies: he wants to increase tariffs drastically, which would increase inflation. He also wants the Fed to be less independent, which could cause them to prioritize short term politics, which would be bad for the long term economy.
- Immigration The president doesn't control immigration alone. Any changes to the immigration process in the US would need bipartisan support. Now luckily, there is bipartisan support for improving the immigration process. That's why there was a bipartisan bill drafted earlier this year to improve the immigration process in various ways. Passing the bill would be good for the US, but bad for Trump as it would make it harder to say that the democrats don't care about immigration. So he told the republicans to vote NO, and they killed the bill because of it. That shows that Trump cares more about winning the election, than improving the border.
- Individual liberties The examples you give are a little vague. I don't know any restrictions that the Biden administration has done to freedom of speech or freedom of conscience. I do know that some people consider the right to abortion a Individual liberty, which is now banned in multiple states because of Trump. Trump has also said he wants to put people in jail for expressing their freedom of speech through burning flags. That's a pretty severe restriction.
Empirical observations are usually more reliable than theoretical arguments.
- Trump already passed a large number of tariffs during his first term and the inflation remained significantly lower than under Biden/Harris administration.
- Illegal immigration was far lower under Trump than under Biden/Harris administration.
- Here is one example: In recent years, NSF made submitting DEI statements a precondition to obtaining scientific grants. Any STEM researcher who thinks that, for example, discriminating against talented Asian students based on their race is immoral, is now required to publicly lie about their beliefs or be denied research funds. Since getting grants is generally a prerequisite to getting tenure, this also means that politically non-compliant people are now barred from starting a career in the academy.
I agree empirical observations are generally more reliable than theoretical argument.
- But higher tariffs does in general increase inflation right? And he didn't influence the Fed that much during his administration, but if he did then it would make the economy worse, right? And it wasn't higher during the Biden/Kamala administration because of price-controls, right?
- Yes, I agree that it was lower. But when voting you don't vote for outcomes, you vote for people who have policies which affect outcomes. When politicians tried to improve the border, Trump told them not to do it. He sabotaged legislation that you would like, to increase the chances that he would win. It feels like you're rewarding Trump for making the border situation worse. I think that is bad.
- If I look up the NSF on Wikipedia, then it says that it's an "independent agency". This means that it is not controlled by the president. It's ok to dislike that policy, but you shouldn't blame Biden for it, because he doesn't control the agency. If Trump was the president, he wouldn't control the agency either. But sure, he could cooperate with other branches of government to influence the NSF. He could also use other branches of government to make it illegal to burn flags. Is that good? Is that not a limit on freedom of speech?
To me it feels like you're bringing up small disagreements you have in some policies with the Biden/Kamala administration, but turning a blind eye to the huge problems with a Trump/Vance administration.
1It seems that you are trying to prove to me that Trump’s policies, such as tariffs, would also have downsides. This is obviously true.
> To me it feels like you're turning a blind eye to the huge problems with a Trump/Vance administration.
I must admit that after you mentioned that you don't know any restrictions that the Biden administration has done to freedom of speech I felt the same way. However, personal feelings are subjective, and, most likely, we are both biased on this issue. Can you think of a good rational argument that Trump’s call to imprison flag burners is a greater threat to freedom of speech than the currently existing restrictions in academic institutions?
Sorry for writing two comments, but I'm really curious of some ground beliefs, because it feels a little silly to talk about specific policy proposals without mentioning the - in my mind - biggest reason not to vote for Trump: he tried to steal the last election.
More specifically, he said after the election that the election was rigged against him. He had a bunch of court cases which sought to prove that the election was rigged against him, and pretty much every case was proven false. Then when his vice president were to certify electors from the state, Trump wanted him to use fake electors, which were not sent from the states, to say that Trump won the election. If his plan would have worked, then Trump would have stolen the election. But Pence did not do that, because Pence didn't want to steal the election. He later said Trump "demanded that I choose between him and the constitution, [..] I chose the constitution". That's why the crowd was yelling "hang Mike Pence" during Jan 6.
Do you care about that?
I strongly disapprove of Trump’s post-election antics, but I believe them to be less important than the Democrat's use of illegal immigration to boost their vote. If the US had no illegal immigration from Latin America, the Democrats would have lost about a fifth of their current voters, and, unless they radically changed their platform, would have lost all Congress and Presidential elections in the past twenty years.
Thanks for answering but I don't get it. I think trying to steal an election is really bad. Is it just that Trump didn't succeed that makes the difference?
And I don't really know what you refer to when you say "Democrat's use of illegal immigration to boost their vote". I know illegal (and legal) immigrants tend to lean democrat, but illegal immigrants can't vote. Is there some study looking at demographic patterns or so? What are the immigration policies of democrats that you think is wrong, and do you have a problem with legal immigration, as that helps democrats too?
Also, immigrants are more than just votes. America has historically had a high level of immigration, who bring a lot of good to the US. Just because a policy is good for democrats doesn't make it into a bad policy. If you don't like immigration or naturalization, then that's fine, but I don't think democrats should avoid a policy just because it will help them.
I think trying to steal an election is really bad. Is it just that Trump didn't succeed that makes the difference?
I believe the most likely interpretation of the events is that Trump was not actually trying to steal the elections but to make most Republicans believe that the victory was stolen from him so that he could have another chance in 2024.
I know illegal (and legal) immigrants tend to lean democrat, but illegal immigrants can't vote.
Millions of illegal immigrants were naturalized by Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, or by having children on US soil and subsequently applying for family reunification visas.
I am certainly not opposed to immigration in principle (I’m an immigrant myself). However, in my opinion, whether immigration is beneficial for the country depends on how the specific immigrant group compares to the native population in terms of culture, education, and professional background. Do they support religious freedom or do they want to impose their religion on others? Do they support the free market and free speech? Will they become net tax-payers? Will their presence raise the local crime rates? For most illegal immigrants, the answers to these questions are not encouraging.
The "Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986" was passed by Ronald Reagan, a Republican, so probably not an attempt by democrats to get votes.
I believe the most likely interpretation of the events is that Trump was not actually trying to steal the elections but to make most Republicans believe that the victory was stolen from him so that he could have another chance in 2024.
Where are you getting this interpretation? He is not saying this, no one around him is saying this. He says that the 2020 election was rigged. He says that it was so rigged that he should be able to suspend the constitution. He tried to execute a plan which, if successful, would have made him president. How was he not trying? Was Rudy Giuliani not trying? Were the fake electors not trying when they signed all those fake documents? Was Trump not trying on January 6, when he told the protestors to pressure Mike Pence to go through with his plan? Were the Proud Boys not trying when they broke into the capitol? Were whoever placed pipe bombs around DC on Jan 5 not trying?
It feels like for someone not trying, he sure made a large impact and made a lot of people believe that he was trying and that they should try to help him win (because it was so rigged).
Well the reason I didn't think of DEI statements and such is because that's not really something Trump talks about much, right? He mostly talks about immigration (cats and dogs!), Ukraine, inflation, etc. So I don't know much about it.
Also, I don't really see DEI statements as a restriction on "freedom of speech" or "freedom of conscience". If I understand correctly, it's that grants by NSF to institutions have to have a section explaining their DEI initiatives. And sure you can disagree if that should be a factor, and maybe you think it's stupid to have as a requirement, but just because they have different priorities/beliefs than you doesn't mean they're stifling freedom of speech.
Imagine if the government started caring a lot about AI and NSF required people to talk about their AI work/impact in every funding request. Would that be stupid? Yes, because a lot of important work isn't that relevant to AI. But this doesn't really impact freedom of speech, it just means they prioritize research differently than you would. The government thinks DEI should affect research grants. You don't. Someone will always feel left out when funding is allocated, and feel "forced" to act in some ways to receive funding. But I don't see that as a restriction on "freedom of speech".
When it comes to burning the flag, maybe it's a bad example. In my mind, burning the flag just means hating on America and I don't think that should be illegal. But some people see burning the flag like destroying something holy, so they treat that restriction differently than other restrictions. But it's still a more clear restriction than DEI statements. It's an actual law that restricts how you are allowed to express yourself in America.
But when it comes to infiltration of institutions, I find it worrying when Vance says:
Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.
What does he mean with "our people"? Would it be a restriction on freedom of speech to fire every civil servant and replace them with "our people"? I think it would. Surely he doesn't mean people who are critical of Trump as "our people".
Also, I think removing the right to abortion from millions of people is a much clearer restriction of liberty than DEI statements or banning flag-burning.
Would it be a restriction on freedom of speech to fire every civil servant and replace them with "our people"? I think it would.
Why does your argument about how the government is free to allocate funding however it wishes in the context of NSF grants not apply to civil servant salaries? About personal loyalty to Trump over the Constitution[1] or whatever,
you can disagree if that should be a factor, and maybe you think it's stupid to have as a requirement, but just because they have different priorities/beliefs than you doesn't mean they're stifling freedom of speech.
…
But this doesn't really impact freedom of speech, it just means they prioritize [not being critical of Trump] differently than you would. The government thinks [party loyalty] should affect [civil service positions]. You don't. Someone will always feel left out when [civil service hiring] is allocated, and feel "forced" to act in some ways to receive [employment]. But I don't see that as a restriction on "freedom of speech".
- ^
This dovetails nicely with your other argument, about him "trying to steal the last election."
- If I understand correctly, it's that grants by NSF to institutions have to have a section explaining their DEI initiatives.
Grants to individual researchers now also require the DEI statement. I think the AI is not a very good analogy because:
- it's apolitical
- I assume that in your example historians and cancer researchers would not lose their jobs for saying heretical things in their AI statements.
A more appropriate analogy would be abortion. Suppose the progressive admins in the NSF are replaced with Christian conservatives who replace the DEI statement with the statement on the “sanctity of life”. To get grants, all researchers must demonstrate how their work is relevant to the fight against the murder of unborn children. Those who refuse or argue in favor of pro-choice policies do not get funding and, after a few years, are forced to quit academic institutions. Would you consider this policy a restriction on the freedom of speech and conscience or just a shift in government priorities?
It would probably be more constructive if we focus on one issue at a time, so I suggest we finish this topic before discussing others.
It would probably be more constructive if we focus on one issue at a time, so I suggest we finish this topic before discussing others.
Okay.
I see all of these decision of deciding what to fund and how to fund them as political. I mean, during the last century a lot of marine research was done through the military, and that shaped what kind of research was done, and which people could do it (probably not anti-war people). I see all of these things as changing government priorities and not restrictions on freedom of speech or conscience.
On the topic of DEI statements themselves, I don't really think it's that productive to require them on a large scale. Many universities and research agencies motivate them by saying that it's important for them to have a diverse base of researches to be more effective/have more perspectives or that it's the moral thing to do, after excluding them historically. And sure, that might make sense, but I think what that means depends a lot on the scientific field and where in America it's done. So such policies are probably better done on a more local level.
I also see that the way the Biden/Harris admin has influenced the NSF is through two executive orders (1, 2) which I don't think is that good. If NSF changed their priority or if laws are passed to change their mandate then that's one thing, but executive orders are pretty blunt. They also make it hard to say who to blame for things like DEI statements as the executive orders are pretty vague. As the NSF is still an independent agency, it feels like DEI statements are more something the NSF made up to promote DEI and which Biden/Harris is allowing, then something they made them do.
But if someone just dislikes DEI statements then it doesn't matter that much why exactly they were implemented, as the important part is that Trump would probably get rid of them.
So basically, I think it's kind of a bad policy, but not that big of a deal.
Can you clarify your answer a little? Do you consider this policy to be not that big of a deal because
- it only forces anti-DEI scientists out of the academy, or
- the specific ideological filter does not matter and forcing out all pro-choice and pro-DEI scientists would not be that big of a deal either.
The problem is that these questions depend a lot on the details. I don't know much about the impact of DEI statements or how they are used. I mean, the Biden/Harris administration doesn't have a policy which is "anti-DEI scientists should be fired" or even "NSF grants should require DEI statements". The NSF just has the mission "to promote the progress of science, to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare, and to secure the national defense". That's really vague, and now the Biden/Harris administration has passed some vague executive orders. But even without executive orders, the NSF could just believe that promoting DEI efforts is important to achieve their mission more effectively. They may be mistaken, but I don't think I can have that much to say about it if I'm not well read about it. That's why I talk so much about process and why I dislike the use of executive orders as it's kind of a sidestep of the normal process (I think).
Basically my answer is (2), but it depends on the details and I just haven't seen that much of an impact of these DEI statements. I just think there are differences between the candidates that are a lot more important than their impact on DEI in academia.
Choosing (2) makes you an extreme outlier among Democrats, so to be honest, it’s a little hard to believe that you thought it through very well. In your opinion, why is it so bad to replace progressive civil servants with conservatives (“our people”), but doing the same for college professors is not?
So someone who doesn't agree with democrats hasn't thought through what they think? That doesn't sound right. I already said I disagree with the policy and how it's implemented. I just think there are other things which are a lot more important.
And I don't think choosing (2) is that weird, I just think it matters a lot what the process is to "filter out" people. Trump has said that he wants to make every executive branch employee fireable by the president. That gives a lot of power to the president, which I think is bad. I think it's good if the government has a system of checks and balances which limits the presidents power so that the government has a more "slow" and consistent policy, so that the employees don't feel like they are micromanaged by the President.
Fair enough. My own opinion is that, beyond hurting freedom of speech, hiring researchers based on their race, sexual orientation, and ideological compliance is doing massive damage to scientific progress and undermines the ability of research institutions to provide objective information on matters of public policy (COVID-19, AGW, etc.). However, people can indeed have different opinions on the importance of these issues.
I responded to your other questions in two separate comments.
You are correct that major legal changes in the immigration process generally require bipartisan support. However, controlling the executive branch is already sufficient to sabotage the implementation of the existing laws. In 1986 the US passed a bipartisan compromise bill that naturalized illegal immigrants residing in the US in return for measures that were supposed to prevent further illegal immigration. However, subsequent Democratic administrations largely refused to enforce them allowing illegal immigration to grow. There is no obvious reason to think that the recent bill proposed by Democrats would have been any different. Given that it was proposed during the election year, its only effect would have been to allow Democrats to pretend that the issue has been resolved and remove it as a discussion topic during the election campaign.
The bill was a bipartisan bill though. As described by republican James Lankford:
It is interesting: Republicans, four months ago, would not give funding for Ukraine, for Israel and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy, [..] And now, it’s interesting, a few months later, when we’re finally getting to the end, they’re like, 'Oh, just kidding, I actually don’t want a change in law because it’s a presidential election year.'
It's effect would have been to improve the border. That's why there were republicans who wanted it passed, because they wanted to improve the border. Some democrats probably also want to improve the border, while some democrats just want to pass the bill to improve the chances that the democrats would be elected again. But the republicans probably don't want the democrats to win, and probably just wanted to pass the bipartisan border bill to improve the border.
Not an American but support Trump from afar. Genuine curiosity here - if you were to steelman the rational Trump supporter, what would you say? (happy for pushback in the ensuing discussion).
Here's a steelman:
- Abortion If you believe abortion is immoral, then Trump's greatest accomplishment during his last term was to appoint conservative supreme court judges which gave the ability to ban abortion to the states. This lead to several states placing heavy restrictions on abortions. If Trump wins again, abortion might even be restricted nationally, as Trump has declined to say whether he'll veto such a bill.
- Immigration The US has seen an increase in illegal immigration during Biden's presidential term. There are many factors that influenced this, but if Trump was President then it would probably be lower. For example, he wants to use the military to deport people, something I don't believe a democratic candidate would do.
- Israel/Palestine A war is happening in the middle east, and though the US is supporting Israel, their support is partial, and they express support for Palestinians too. They are sanctioning settlers and being affected by democratic voters who don't support Israel. Trump would be more pro-Israel and would not cave in to pressure; he would even jail protesters who burn flags.
- Winning The democratic party cares about laws and democratic norms. Trump cares about winning. Sometimes you have to have a guy that tries to win, no matter what. If cartels are affecting the US, bomb Mexico. If there's a war in Europe, force a peace deal. If bad people win the election, use fake electors. If you break the law, become immune. Elect a leader who does whatever it takes to win, and then the US will win too.
"Winning The democratic party cares about laws and democratic norms. Trump cares about winning."
I doubt that you passed the IIT. I presume MAGA republicans would say that they're the ones that care about Freedom and Democracy while the democrats are the two-faced cronies of the Deep State.
1
1Yeah maybe. I tried to write what I think is true, but from the perspective of someone with different values. If I included things I didn't think were true then that feels like I'm mocking Trump supporters and I don't want to do that. For example: "The democrats are letting in immigrants who are eating cats and dogs, people's pets. Trump would stop this". Obviously it's a belief held by MAGAs, and if it was true then it's a good argument to vote for Trump. But I don't think it's true, and therefore it's a very bad argument.
I highly doubt anywhere near the majority of Trump supporters (or even Trump himself) give any credence to the literal truth of those claims. It’s much more likely that they simply don’t care whether it’s literally true or not, because they feel that the “underlying” is true or something of the kind. When it comes to hearsay, people are much more forgiving of literal falsehoods, especially when they acknowledge there is a kind of “metatruth” to it. To give an easy analogue, of all the criticism I’ve heard of Christianity, not once have I heard anyone complain that the parables told by Jesus weren’t literally true, for example. (I do believe my account here passes the IIT for both groups, btw.)
A steelman is not necessarily an ITT. The ITT for any "average X supporter" is always going to be very underwhelming.
A steelman is not necessarily an ITT, but whenever you find yourself having “0% support” for a position ~half the population supports, it’s almost guaranteed that the ITT will be a steelman of your current understanding of the position.
This is a pretty good example of the dangers of steel-manning I think. The disagreement, on the face of it, seems to revolve around both values and truth claims.
It seems there is a pretty substantial disagreement between you and MAGA republicans on which of the two parties are most subverting due process and democracy. [ see the rethoric around 'the swamp', 'deep state' , 'lawfare' and the Trump assasination attempts etc]
I would guess that this is plausibly the largest crux between you and MAGA republicans. I would be skeptical you can have a real dialogue with a MAGA republican if you deny this part of the disagreement.
passed the ITT
@Pazzaz That's the Ideological Turing Test. I agree that really ought have been written out in full.
I’m not allowed to vote in the election but I hope Trump wins because I think he will negotiate a peace in Ukraine. If Harris wins I think the war will drag on for another couple of years at worst.
I have no problem getting pushback.
Do you care about what kind of peace it is, or just that there is some sort of peace? If latter, I might agree with you on Trump being more likely to quickly get us there. For former, Trump is a horrible choice. On of the easiest way for a US President to force a peace agreement in Ukraine is probably to privately threaten Ukranians to withhold all support, unless they quickly agree to Russian demands. IMHO, Trump is very likely to do something like that. The huge downside is that while this creates a temporary peace, it would encourage Russia to go for it again with other neighbors,and to continue other destabilizing behaviors across the globe (in collaboration with China, Iran, North Korea, etc). Also increases the chances of China going at Taiwan.
For me, a candidates claim of what they will do is sufficient when they have unilateral control over doing it. For instance, I believe a claim to sign or veto a specific type of bill. I don't tend to believe that they will make the economy good, avoid recession, close all the tax loopholes, etc.
Do you:
a) believe candidates when they claim they will be successful at things not entirely in their control
b) believe Trump but not others (like Kamala) when they claim they'll do things not entirely in their control
c) think that a Russia-Ukraine peace negotiation would be entirely in Trump's control
d) see some actions that are entire in Trump's control that you are confident would cause peace
e) other
I'm not convinced Trump will succeed and I'm worried by what he would be ok with to reach peace but it is true that he made happen things that seemed unlikely (no war, leaving Afghanistan, korea meeting), nevermind if this meant negotiating with terrible people.
So if you don't care about Ukraine and want the war to stop, I'm also under the impression that Trump is your best shot.
1
It's that time of year - the time when rationality seems increasingly scarce as political tensions rise. I find myself wishing I could have one of the people I see reaching super different conclusions shoot me with a POV gun so I could understand what it's like being on the other side.
I'm not strongly left-leaning, so I don't have trouble understanding why people may have some concerns about the left - but I have 0% support for Donald Trump, so if you want to explain to me why you think he's great, go for it. I also think that the election is close to 50/50 currently, so if you think it's 80+/20- either way, I'm also interested in hearing from you.
2 notes:
1. I really wish I understood how the irrational people were thinking about it, but unfortunately, they aren't able to explain it to me in a way I can understand, so I have to settle for rational people on the other side, but if you feel you have a good grasp on how your less rational peers tick, please share.
2. In your comment, let me know if you want pushback or not. Let's make the options: "just listen", "listen and question", and "open". Just listen means I'll attempt to only ask questions to clarify your meaning but not test edge cases. Listen and questions means I'll also ask about edge cases, internal coherence, other considerations, but won't be presenting evidence or making statements. Open means I can respond however I want.