How many Trump supporters can be persuaded?

Post Reply New Topic

Perhaps all the Trump supporters who are having some of their land taken over by imminent domain to allow for the building of this wall they voted trump in to build between the U.S and Mexico can be swayed. Just turns out some of the plans involve putting some of these peoples property on the 'mexican' side, and his supporters just can't believe it. Well you voted for him douchebag...! is what I say to those people.

Yes, I know, I was being sarcastic.
Perhaps admitting that part of Trump's support comes from racists would be liberating if you gave it a chance.

I'd have to be caught up first in order to be liberated.

I'm aware that any political party is going to have bad people in support of it. If there was a democrat president, they'd be supported by anifa and anarchists etc.

the big difference is that this POTUS is catering to those specific bad elements, employing those bad elements in his administration.

And they say the same of Obama catering to antifa. Hillary too. And then there's the association with George Soros etc etc. The whole point is to vilify.

Obama never hired antifa to work in his administration. but #45 has general Kelly who perpetuated the lie that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery.

I didn't hear him say that. Show me where Kelly said "the civil war had nothing to do with slavery". I already know you can't because he didn't say that. But it's being construed that way by leftist media for the sake of vilification.

There was no Antifa before the Trump administration. It was a response to the fascist and racist element crawling out from under their rock now that a President has courted them.
And as I recall, anarchists weren't that happy ever with Obama. They constantly opposed the G8 Summit that Obama was a member of, as well as other Obama favored policies.

the people [like gen. Kelly] who maintain we should have "compromised" with the south, conveniently leave out the fact that such compromise could only mean maintenance and eventual expansion of slavery over the rest of America. hence, a de facto denial of slavery as a civil war issue, from a historical standpoint.

I'm just not seeing it. Kelly didn't say they should have compromised with the south. He said "The lack of an ability to compromise lead to the civil war". Isn't that just a statement of fact? To me lack of ability means they were unable, as in it wasn't possible.

Last edited by EzraS on 05 Nov 2017, 3:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

no, not at all. strictly opinion, dissembling opinion, on the part of somebody ultimately well schooled in world history who should have known better than to speak as he did.

So if a lack of ability to compromise, as in unable to compromise, because it wasn't possible, didn't lead to the civil war, then what did?

In fact, the north had constantly compromised with the south leading up to the Civil War, such as with the Kansas/Nebraska Act, and the agreement to honor the deplorable Runaway Slave Act, and yet the south still tried seceding.

going back decades to what they taught us in American history - the refusal of the south to limit its slavery/table any talk of slavery's expansion to the new states, was at heart of it. each state added to the union renewed arguments as to whether it would be slave or free. this was the main thing, but of course there were other cultural differences as well, which did not help things stay friendly between the sides. the only thing "compromise" could have meant to the south, was "let us keep expanding slavery wherever and whenever we want."

Lincoln himself said that it was an all or nothing situation. That either slavery would have to exist across the united sates or it would have to be abolished across the united states. So there was no compromise that was possible. There was a lack of ability to compromise. As in that option wasn't available.

so when gen. Kelly said what he said, he was just "hablando mierde."