Should you engage Trump supporters?

Should you engage Trumpsters? Yes and no. The short answer is no because they are brainwashed. The longer answer is yes, but only on basic facts. Until someone acknowledges a common set of facts, there is nothing to discuss.
Share This!
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest
Share on reddit
Share on email
Share on print

Do not engage Trump supporters about politics. The 2020 Republican party has brainwashed them with bad facts. What can you do? You can engage them with a focus on basic facts. How will that help? Discussion with the hope to further agreement between two people requires a common set of facts. Attempting to progress understanding using two sets of facts is a waste of time and energy and is only likely to increase your blood pressure and lead to an earlier death. Okay, that’s a bit hyperbolic, but you get the point.

Here is a list of facts you can attempt to get agreement on:

  • Was the attack on the Capital building sedition? Yes.
  • Did Trump incite the Capital building attack? Yes.
    • Did Rudy Giuliani incite the Capital building attack? Yes.
    • Did Donald Trump, Jr. incite the Capital building attack? Yes.
  • Was Donald Trump Individual 1 in the conviction of Michael Cohen? Yes, read docs.
  • When Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Mike Flynn, and Joe Arpaio accepted pardons from Trump, are they 100% admitting guilt? Yes, read docs

Politics is about compromise

Politics is, was, and will always be about compromise based on common facts.  Politicians are elected to get stuff done. They are supposed to listen to all voters, not just their voters, figure out what most agree on, compromise where needed, and pass the best possible solution under current circumstances. A good politician tries to persuade those that disagree with something. And, in the end meet in the middle. Good politicians are good at governing because they know how to persuade and compromise.

Governing is hard. It is about compromise and those that are not willing to govern tend to throw stones and say, “it’s our way or the highway”. I wish people would never vote for a politician that only listened to their own voters no matter which side of the isle they are on.

Truth

Absolute truth exists and alternate facts do not. An absolute truth is something that is true at all times and no matter the circumstances. It is a fact that cannot be changed. For example, there are no round triangles. Truth may be hard at times to discover, but it does exist.

Common facts = Debate Worth Having

There are no facts that will reach Trump supporters. It saddens me that it appears about 78% of 2020 Republicans have no values at all, nor any sense of reality. It saddens me that it’s a waste of time to attempt to have rationale conversations with Trump supporters, with 2020 Republicans.

Facts matter. Politics is, was, and will always be about compromise based on common facts. Absolute truth exists and there is no such thing as an “alternate fact”. Until “they” come back to Earth 1, there is nothing to do except reject them. For the record, America does not negotiate with terrorists nor those that support them. And, 78% of the remaining Republicans are terrorists. Yes, deplorables.

Christian to Isis Terrorist Example

Imagine a scenario where a Christian true-believer is attempting to convince an ISIS true believer that they need to convert to Christianity. First off, from my viewpoint, you shouldn’t because I believe in 100% freedom of conscience just like Roger Williams introduced to the world in 1636 (Roger Williams is my 10th great grandpa). Secondly, because they do not believe in the same common truths, it’s a waste of time for either to try and directly convert the other without first addressing basic facts and truths. This is the same with Trump supporters. Until Trump supporters believe a common set of facts, there is no use trying to convert them against Trump. Instead, focus on basic facts.

HRC Deplorables

Hillary was 100% right all this time. She said about half of the Trump supporters at the time are deplorable. I know Fox News and others want to ignore the truth and math, but it’s important. Especially, if one is going to make a mountain out of a molehill.

First off, the math. At the time, Trump had about 41% of likely voters. 138 million voted in 2016 so 41% is about 56 million. But she said half which is about 28 million. That’s 8% of the population — not 50% of all Americans as stated by the right echo chamber many times. Repeating something does not make it true for people who know how to think.

Do you agree that at least 8% of Americans are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and/or Islamaphobic?

I think the data is clear that 8% is very low. After all, 23% of Americans believe Obama was born in Kenya. And, 23% believe in UFOs.

Are Trump supporters Republicans?

In light of the Trump support attack on the Capital Building, it’s a fair question to ask if they are Republicans. Are they the Republican party? Is this what the RNC is about? 

The short answer is yes, THESE ARE REPUBLICANS! It’s a typical Republican response to say “personal responsibility”, but then take NONE. That’s a core thing most Republicans do.

Are these Republican values? Yes. These ARE indeed Republican values on display. Republicans led by the Republican president who asked them to do this just prior. Trump LITERALLY said “march on the capital” to these people who then marched on the capital. This is also the party of Republican leaders Ted Cruz and Scalise who LITERALLY gave seditious speeches this morning on the floor of that SAME BUILDING. Josh Hawley and other followed up after the invasion with seditious speeches as well. There is no doubt, this is the 2020 Republican party.

Sane Republicans are Ignored

It amazes me how many casual Trump supporters do not listen to their own Republican leaders. Why they don’t listen to Republicans such as Steve Schmidt, Nicole Wallace, and Michael Steele escapes me.

Disband Republican party?

Do we need a Republican party? Yes. I strongly want the Republican party back. We need reality oriented conservatives. The debate between conservatives (let’s keep things the same), and liberals (let’s at least discuss change) is very important. It saddens me that 2020 Republicans have no core values at all.

separator, divider, HR

FAQ

(Submitted frequently asked questions. To participate, comment below,
or submit a question or comment.)

Q. What are well-documented facts I can use to confront Trump supporters?

A. Here is a list of questions you can ask. If you get the correct answer, just move on. Stay away from conclusions built on these facts. Each of these questions links to an article I wrote which will have original documentation and additional links to more documentation.

  • Was Donald Trump Individual 1 in the conviction of Michael Cohen? Yes, read docs.
  • When Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Mike Flynn, and Joe Arpaio accepted pardons from Trump, are they 100% admitting guilt? Yes, read docs
  • Was Trump impeached for breaking several Federal laws? Yes, read docs.
  • Has Trump disrespected the military? Yes, read docs.
  • Was Roger Stone guilty of a conspiracy with Russia to throw an American Presidential election and was Trump implicated? Yes, read docs.
  • Did Rudy Giuliani work with known foreign spies against America? Yes, see docs.
  • Is it a lie to say Antifa is a terrorist group? Yes, see docs.

Q. How should sane Republicans handle it?

Sane Republicans should simply reject Trump supporters. This includes the leaders that have yet to acknowledge reality. Remember that the House and Senate have the right and power to eject members. They should immediately eject Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Scalise from Congress for their seditious speeches giving on the floor of Congress right before and after the terrorists invaded the Capital Building carrying the foreign flags of Trump and the defeated traitorous Confederate army. 

Q. Isn’t the attempted coup the fault of the Capitol Police?

Yes and no. My opinion is that it’s a typical Republican tactic to try a red herring logical fallacy. Specifically, saying it’s the police’s fault is a red herring fallacy. The same goes for their claim this was actually Antifa disguised as Trump supporters.

Q. After the attempted coup, is Trump done?

With cults and the like, when the leader goes away the movement loses support. Sometimes all support. In Trump’s case I’m watching the % of support for him with all Republican voters. He was as high as 95% prior to the pandemic. With the needless death of 300,000 Americans on his bloody hands, all his crimes and treason, he only slipped a bit to about 84% or so. AFTER AN ATTEMPTED COUP, Trump still has the support of 78% of Republicans. THIS IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. THERE IS NO DOUBT.

Q. Is banning Trump from Twitter an infringement on his freedom of speech?

No. The First Amendment is, was, and will always be about limiting the GOVERNMENT’s ability to suppress speech. Anyone who says otherwise simply does not understand 400 years of history starting with Roger Williams, nor the intent of our Founding Fathers, nor our Constitution.

Q. Isn’t free speech in the town square protected by the First Amendment?

Sure, from the government, but not from other people.

Q. Isn’t Twitter and Facebook like the town square?

No, it’s more like a private place open to the public. Imagine a scenario where an ISIS terrorist walks into a Catholic church where anyone can walk in and starts promoting hate speech against America, the Bible, the Catholic church, etc. What are the rights of the Church? Do they have the right to ban an ISIS terrorist from their private church which is open to the public? Yes, of course they do.

Q. If the government extends protection to Twitter from litigation based on section 230, then doesn’t that limit their ability to ban users? Or, edit content?

 

There is no requirement that a platform remain neutral in order to maintain Section 230 immunity. Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter do not have to choose between their protections of Section 230 and their First Amendment rights; they can have both rights. Section 230 was adopted precisely to encourage moderation. To now say that moderation breaks neutrality ignores the intent of the law.

Section 230(c)(1) clearly defines that social media platforms “shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Section 230 also gives social media platforms wide latitude to moderate the content posted to its site. Sub-section 230(c)(2) explicitly states a “good faith” basis to restrictions placed on access to “material that [it] or [the] user considers to be … objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

There is no neutrality provision and no review provision. The text explicitly says that the decision about whether material is objectionable is the service provider’s to make.

Q. Don’t social media sites have to let the President on their platform?

Free speech includes the right not to speak, so the government cannot force social media sites to host content they do not want to host. An obligation to force them to host content would amount to a form of compelled speech which is a violation of the First Amendment.

Q. Do businesses have a right to do business with whoever they want?

Yes, each company carefully develops their customer base. However, they cannot discriminate against the protected classes of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability. Notice political viewpoint is NOT on this list. Businesses are not required to do business with lying liars who lie, white supremacists, the Klan, Neonazis, nor terrorists.

Facebook? Please Like this!
Share this!
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on pinterest
Pinterest
Share on reddit
Reddit
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print

Comments

Leave a Comment

Scroll to Top