Why do people want Trump?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm a night owl by nature, but I'm working up to an effective dose on a new drug that's messing with my sleep schedule, so you won't be rid of me that easily.

Do people still want Trump in the sense that he seemed to want to bring the economy back and was doing things for that, unlike Biden, so maybe people are willing to put up with Trumps flaws and antics, because of his economical motivations? Also, Trump was easier on covid restrictions, so maybe people want him back for that reason as well? I don't think the majority of Trump supporters like him as a person per se, they are just wanting him back for those other kind of reasons, and it's nothing personal?

Somewhat, but as I've been saying, I believe the primary motivation is his effect on liberals, both his driving them crazy and inflicting mental pain upon them, and in stymieing their plans for the country, which conservatives view as across the board disastrous. You have to remember that it's an article of faith across large parts of the right that government is the source of many problems, and so less of it is always better, so a guy who gums up the whole works either intentionally or through his own chaotic incompetence is seen as a good thing, especially when he comes with the aforementioned bonuses of driving the liberals to self harm and appointing conservative judges to the courts.

Just so no one gets the wrong idea here, my personal preference is that he not be the nominee in 2024, once was damaging enough for the country, but I'm trying to explain his appeal to conservative voters and what specifically they like about him, as well as dispelling some common misconceptions about the right.

Oh well, whenever I ask someone who likes Trump more, they say it's because he cares about the economy a lot more than the democrats. That seems to be the reason that they say anyway.

Don't know. The left has a lot of infighting and doesn't see itself as one team. Disliking Republicans alone doesn't unite the left as most dislike the corruption of Democrats too. Many seem even harsher on Democrats they don't like when compared to Republicans they don't like. I think it's because with the GOP at least you know exactly what you are going to get. A lot of Democrats will say one thing then do something completely different once in office. The left doesn't feel like they have actual broad representation.

I don't have the energy to respond to false equivalences.

What's false? You made a definitive claim that Democratic politicians never ever rejected election results, and I named one who very famously did, who as far as I know is still claiming to have won her election. I can name others if you like, there are plenty of examples over the years, but if you're just going to brush aside inconvenient facts when they contradict your statements it doesn't seem like a good use of my time.

It's exactly the same on the right, there's a big chunk of the base that feels repeatedly misled by the mainstream GOP, and hates "RINOs" with just as much intensity as they hate Democrats. This is another factor in the popularity of Trump, his willingness to break with GOP orthodoxy was seen as a breath of fresh air by many on the right.

But why have teams at all though, in politics? Why not just have a system where people elect individuals with no political party ties, and that way, we can avoid this cheer-leader-ish sportsman like contest in the culture?

I guess it just kind of evolves because it's such a powerful way for the leadership to bulldoze their wishes through with a block vote. Just as an army would likely lose a battle if they let each soldier do whatever they thought was right, just as a trade union relies on solidarity.

I'm not saying it's fair or democratic. It seems rather odd that even the Republicans who profess to love the idea of small government still want to be part of a large, powerful authority. It seems a diabolical liberty to have what's supposed to be representative democracy when our representatives can't or won't represent us. But I don't know how it could be stopped.

Another interesting idea would be to let all citizens vote on all issues, removing the need for political leaders completely, instead of just getting to choose between a couple of package deals, many elements of which the individual probably doesn't want. But politicians aren't going to let that happen. And in spite of its obvious advantage of being truly democratic, I can't be sure it would be the best way to go. Politicians tend to claim they know best and that they're using their expertise to look after our interests. Actually a lot of it is preference rather than expertise, but perhaps not all.

My friend also proposed the idea in a conversation that people should vote on all issues, thereby limiting the governments authority more. But would people be willing to do this, or would they find it just too taxing to vote on a new issues say every couple of weeks?

Many of the US Founding Fathers wanted exactly that, but it just didn't work in practice, you need to coordinate people to get things done, which requires an organization of people with similar interests, and those organization become parties.

Oh okay, but would it help if there were more than two parties then rather than just two because then it just becomes a big p***ing contest by having just two?

It would be interesting to see. To some extent I suppose the feeling of empowerment might help to motivate people, and it could be made very easy if everybody had a simple-to-use electronic voting machine and access to relevent information about the likely effects of the legal changes they were being asked to vote on. Anybody who couldn't be bothered to vote would simply not have a say, just like in an election. There'd probably be a lot of practical difficulties, the law of unintended consequences and all. And I don't know that individuals would feel that their one vote counted for much in a large country, though the same could be said of elections. I don't know how it would be decided which issues were to be voted on, or when. The whole process might work a lot better on a local level. It's interesting to ponder whether it's good or bad for a region to be under the jurisdiction of a larger state at all. I like the principle that if a decision affects a person, they should have an equal say in deciding it, but moral principles and expediency aren't always the same thing.

Well for example Biden wanted to get the military out of Afghanistan and some are against it and some not, but would it have been better if it was put to a vote instead?

I don't know. Foreign policy isn't a simple matter and I doubt most people know enough about it to have a valid opinion. I don't know much about it myself. A lot of people say the first world war was little more than a mindless waste of life, and nobody seems to know for sure how it started and escalated into such a mess. What did it achieve, except to show that the alliances between different governments at the time, supposedly to keep the peace, were shamefully unfit for purpose? Vietnam - the US gov insisted on going in, but eventually pulled out, yet the world didn't collapse - wouldn't it have been better not to have gone in? I don't know. It's a shame we're not all educated better, then most of us might understand these things deeply and be able to make wise decisions.