In fairness, it’s not really that far a stretch to have believed that Trump wasn’t going to actually build a wall, because his stated plan to build a wall was reallllly dumb. Like, on its face, it was totally implausible.
His stated plan was to have Mexico pay for a giant wall.
It wasn’t some kind of metaphor, either. His plan was that somehow Mexico was literally going to give us money for a giant wall.
That plan was, obviously, idiotic. It was never, ever, going to happen.
Now, for a more rational voter, you might think, “Well, I’m not gonna vote for the guy who is pitching an obviously absurd, implausible idea.”
But apparently a bunch of Trump voters just thought that the dumb parts of his plaform (it was all dumb, but they thought SOME of it was dumb) was just a joke, and he was going to focus on doing the other stuff.
So ya, this guy is dumb, but he’s not dumb for thinking the wall wouldn’t be built as Trump suggested… because it won’t.
See this part just doesn’t make sense. Trump was ALL about the Wall. He talked about it all the time. And about locking Clinton up (also never going to happen for obvious reasons.) His supporters and voters wanted this shit to happen. He was going to make America great (again)! By building a wall, locking up Clinton, etc. It’s not like Trump had all this other reasonable shit in his platform. That was it.
Build a wall
Lock Clinton up
Make America Great Again
At no point did he have some somewhat intelligent shit to say about how #3 would ever happen.
No, the reality is that Trump had a lot of stupid crap mixed up in his platform.
For instance, this guy wanted improved border security, but NOT the wall, because the wall was obviously crazy. Or folks just wanted lower taxes. Or some just wanted to do protectionist bullshit.
A ton of them just wanted to screw over the libtards… Seriously, that was the depth of training behind a bunch of these idiots. Just raw spite with no further rationale.
Since these guys weren’t looking for any kind of consistency, they basically just picked whatever they wanted to believe, and straight up ignored the rest. Some of them believed different amounts of the bull… some believed Mexico was actually going to pay for it, but when pressed on how exactly that was going to work, of course they couldn’t explain it… Usually just came down to “we trade so much with Mexico, they’ll have to.”
This is why trying to have consistent ideas actually matters. Because if you abandon that, then you are open to believing total nonsense.
What’s really telling is that you don’t see the irony in posting this in a thread about future ecological devastation. I wish more people would draw the line at the survival of monarch butterflies.
I was originally gonna say it’s a circle, but it’s not.
But the Trump supporter circle is probably entirely inside the Christian circle… And if you made a circle inside Christians labeled “Christians who suck at being Christians”, the Trump supporters would all be inside that circle.
It’s not a hypothetical worth discussing here, as not building walls is both pro-human and pro endangered species, and neither of us want the wall.
What I was trying to point out is your flippant use of ‘draw the line at butterflies (of all things, hahaha!)’ points to an attitude towards wildlife which is rampant and one of the reasons why we need a thread like this one. Happy to be wrong, not trying to accuse you of anything personally, etc. etc., the way you phrased it just motivated me to write.
Flippant? That I think a person who is ok with killing people but expresses outrage over killing butterflies has some problems doesn’t mean I’m totally down with torching the butterflies. Why would you think that?
You’re being disingenuous here. Your use of language is exaggerating one side (building a wall does not equate with directly killing people) and minimising the other (these aren’t just any backyard butterflies, but the largest species that are highly endangered and create a natural wonder of the world when they all congregate in certain parts of Mexico).
For the record, I’m not actually making that argument.
However, the argument would generally be based on some notion of preserving biological diversity, where the loss of a human would make little impact on the world given that humans are in no danger of going extinct, but the loss of a member of an endangered species could have a non trivial impact on the overall survival of that species.
“Good, good, Mr. Rico! I think we have strained your tired brain enough for one day. Bring to class tomorrow a written proof, in symbolic logic, of your answer…”
