Backlash from friends about Supporting Trump

[taraelizabeth21]

Hi everyone

 

I just wanted to see if there's anyone out there who is getting some flack from the people in their lives about supporting Trump?

 

I don't think it's been TOO bad for me, but I'd like to see if anyone is going thru the same thing & how they might have dealt with it. Obviously we're getting down to the wire here for the election and I've been sharing articles and talking to as many people as I can, but, if anyone has any advice/suggestions about how to be more convincing in this arena--I'd love to hear from you

 

Thanks 

Tara

[jpahmad]

I'm getting it Big time

[taraelizabeth21]

What's been your experience?

[shirgall]

What's been your experience?

 

Social ostracism among the tech crowd I'm part of.

[neeeel]

Social ostracism among the tech crowd I'm part of.

 

do you want to say more? what happens? What do they do?

[dsayers]

if anyone has any advice/suggestions about how to be more convincing in this arena--I'd love to hear from you

How do you know that your position is worth convincing others of? From their perspective, it might seem like they'd like advice on how to influence you.

 

What does "flack" look like? Do you think that word poisons the well? From me, "flack" would be reminding you of many things you probably already know, not the least of which is that you don't own me. What does "supporting" Trump look like? Do you think his bid for owning me is valid? Do you "support" human slavery?

 

Social ostracism among the tech crowd I'm part of.

Because they want a different master or because they reject masters?

[Wuzzums]

A lion shouldn't concern itself with the opinion of sheep.

[aviet]

I'm a few emails away from ex-communication from someone who has spent the last 13 years coming up with a cornucopia of disparately-inspired regulations to slap on me.

 

#diversity

It doesn't matter what you say, Trump speaks in a loud voice.

[nathanm]

Trump has come up 3 times with my family. I mentioned that "I like Trump, but I'm not voting for him" (100% Pure days) at a family dinner with aunts and uncles which was met with gasps and dropped jaws. Uncle is Trump supporter, brought along Trump hotel napkins as a gag gift.

 

Later got into a more heated argument with mom, with dad taking a more neutral position. Mom at about 35% hysterics. But dad thought Trump was going to say something crazy and make Putin mad or something about 'he just can't act like that as president'.

 

When doing some laundry over there I was folding my clothes and unknowingly pulled out my Trump shirt from the basket. My dad immediately noticed and said, "What's that?"  So I held it against my chest to show my mom and grinned. She groaned, "Oh no!" but wasn't upset. Dad asked "When did you get that?"  No further discussion about it.  I have other Trump swag, but where I work I am hesitant about showing it on my car for fear of workplace conflict as well as vandalism from Local Youths. I know this is cowardice.

 

The thing is, my folks are pure CNN\MSNBC so they are on another planet in terms of the news they consume.  It's kind of like visiting a remote island whose natives have never seen the outside world.

 

A number of online friends are on a puritan ancap\anti-Stefan tear currently so that's annoying too.  Some are still hung up on the fucking loose cigarette selling black guy case and Stefan's treatment of it. Yes, I forgot the guy's name and didn't bother to look it up.

[taraelizabeth21]

A lion shouldn't concern itself with the opinion of sheep.

 

Wuzzums, I appreciate the metaphor but can you elaborate? How have you seen this play out in your own life? What are the details of your experience? 

 

That goes for anyone in this thread. Details please, what is your mindset? How have you dealt with this conflict?

[Wuzzums]

Wuzzums, I appreciate the metaphor but can you elaborate? How have you seen this play out in your own life? What are the details of your experience? 

 

That goes for anyone in this thread. Details please, what is your mindset? How have you dealt with this conflict?

You cannot live your life by relying on others. If you're your own person a time will come when the people that have shun you will have to ask something of you and because they need you and you don't need them you'll be shocked by their kindness and politeness towards you.

 

Suck it up, become self-reliant, take notes, and have patience.

[taraelizabeth21]

I don't rely on others; I'm pretty much my own island IRL. That's why I reached out to the community here to see if anyone else was feeling the same way. But that approach doesn't necessarily help me for certain contexts, like at my job, so I wanted to crowd source to see what other people have been feeling about it. So I think I get your stance on it, anyone else? Any hate from leftists at work? Has anyone faced any negative consequences for their views, esp. at work?

[shirgall]

do you want to say more? what happens? What do they do?

 

Ever since my revelation I have not participated in any reindeer games. No indication that my nose resembles a Kennedy's though.

[dejvor]

I don't rely on others; I'm pretty much my own island IRL. That's why I reached out to the community here to see if anyone else was feeling the same way. But that approach doesn't necessarily help me for certain contexts, like at my job, so I wanted to crowd source to see what other people have been feeling about it. So I think I get your stance on it, anyone else? Any hate from leftists at work? Has anyone faced any negative consequences for their views, esp. at work?

 

I've had a friend accuse me of "being radicalized." 

 

I didn't really get upset at him other than to say I wouldn't tolerate him labelling me, without him paying attention to my ideas.

 

I've known this guy for almost a decade, and I'm surprised he was so upset at me, but I guess I'm not surprised... given that the left is primarily the party of the feels. 

[taraelizabeth21]

Yeah, I had to basically convince a friend last night that Breitbart isn't just a propaganda machine, or something? It's funny how Breitbart and the like get accused of being partisan or biased but no one cares about the MSM. 

 

If a person is worried about bias in the media you'd think they'd attack where it matters and go for the entire liberal establishment, but no you gotta worry about alt right publications because somehow that is where the real problem lies.

 

I've gotten people telling me they're "shocked" at my opinion, as well. It's like, really? You're shocked that I don't want to go to war and that I think Clinton is corrupt? Wow, what a revelation

[Gavitor]

My friend was vehemently against Trump, called him an idiot etc same old bullshit talking points from the media and was a Bernie supporter...

 

He is now voting for Trump and pushing back against people who still blindly support Hillary despite the overwhelming evidence of her crimes.

 

I'm willing to hear what people have to say against trump with regards to his policies however those are NEVER brought up by the average person (they're more concerned with Trumps appearance or him grabbing their pussy through the monitor) and the majority of complaints about those policies came mostly from here. (and they are legitimate complaints)

 

Make reasoned arguments, don't pressure people into voting (or not voting), Stand your ground and those who aren't willing to listen or think will leave of their own accord.

 

My goal is to inform people and let them decide for themselves, nothing to fight over give people the info and let them decide for themselves. If they spread misinformation then be willing to correct them. (and be willing to correct yourself if you are mistaken)

 

I've found this approach to be best regardless of topic.

[taraelizabeth21]

Thanks, Gavitor! That's super helpful. I've been sticking to reasoned arguments and I think my friend is starting to come around. Glad to hear you've had success, as well. 

[dsayers]

I've been sticking to reasoned arguments

Which one do you use to get over the hump that you don't own me?

[Iron Horse]

Good friends with a lot of hispanics, live in Texas, don't say a sodding thing about politics to anybody.  Instead tell them to buy guns, get guns and aquire more guns so if they are so pro-gun they will never go Democrat.

[Anuojat]

My brother saw trump as Bush 2.0 until after few discussions and days worth of going over things with him in the news and showing him how mainstream media is dying and in theire upcoming deathrattle twisting ewverything trum says... he now is neutral to trump. He would possibly vote... but we are both in finland! XD

 

Hmmm i wonder if theyd allow illegal immigrants voting from europe? XD

 

#fatchange

[Gavitor]

Which one do you use to get over the hump that you don't own me?

I never made the claim that I do...

 

You are making an assumption that I believe that based on your false premise that by voting I somehow own you in the first place. You are ignoring that those that claim to be government are the ones claiming ownership, and voting for less doesn't mean we want government at all the problem is that the option for NONE isn't there. I don't support the government owning you or me or anyone else. Whether I vote or not doesn't change this. Whether I vote or not also doesn't change those that ARE claiming ownership over us.

 

You continue to insinuate that by voting we are giving away your ownership which is completely unfounded. You have yet to prove that those who claim to be government require us to vote in the first place. I would argue they do not, as there are plenty of "countries" that don't have voting. It's not voting that gives them the ok its the guns they hold and the support of those who outright claim that they need their precious master.

[dsayers]

I don't support the government owning you or me or anyone else. Whether I vote or not doesn't change this. Whether I vote or not also doesn't change those that ARE claiming ownership over us.

I wish people would stop using the word "support" incorrectly.

 

Anyways, this is the cognitive dissonance I'm trying to combat. If you accept that person A can never have a greater claim of ownership over person B than person B does, engaging in political voting is not consistent with this. Because with your vote, you are saying that human subjugation is valid, you choose that particular master, and that you transfer to them ownership of everybody within the jurisdiction they're running for. If this bothers you, then don't vote. Instead, live according to your values.

[Toys4]

  I have had one debate with a friend where I defended Trump and they weren't really buying much of anything, It didn't go well, me and this friend have been growing apart for a while now. Me and that person parting ways is a good thing. Other than that when I post things in favor of Donald Trump most of my friends don't respond I really don't know how they feel, no one has lashed out at me.

[HeyMorpheus]

I am getting a little bit. Not so much outright backlash but there is a noticeable silence from my friends when I speak out in support of Trump. You know the type of uncomfortable silence that follows after you tell a joke or make a comment that other people are offended by. 

 

Recently a good friend told me Trump was a fascist. I will give a summary of the conversation.

 

Friend: "Trump is a fascist so I will not vote for him."

Me: "How is Trump a fascist?"

Friend: "Seriously dude?"

Me: "Yes, I am being serious. How is Trump a fascist?"

Friend: "His policies and stuff. Just like Mussolini."

Me: "That's not a very good argument. I'm asking you to specifically tell me how Trump is a fascist."

Friend: "Forget it man you're being ridiculous." 

 

Might be worth mentioning he calls himself "AnCap", and any solution to a problem that is not 100% AnCap he opposes.

[aviet]

Friend: "Trump is a fascist so I will not vote for him."

Me: "How is Trump a fascist?"

Friend: "Seriously dude?"

Me: "Yes, I am being serious. How is Trump a fascist?"

Friend: "His policies and stuff. Just like Mussolini."

Me: "That's not a very good argument. I'm asking you to specifically tell me how Trump is a fascist."

Friend: "Forget it man you're being ridiculous." 

 

Might be worth mentioning he calls himself "AnCap", and any solution to a problem that is not 100% AnCap he opposes.

It doesn't sound like this guy has the intellectual capacity to understand what AnCap is. Still, if being AnCap was the next mindless trend people got into I'd be quite happy.

[HeyMorpheus]

It doesn't sound like this guy has the intellectual capacity to understand what AnCap is. Still, if being AnCap was the next mindless trend people got into I'd be quite happy.

He's an intelligent person, but it seems lately he has stopped "feeding his mind". I've sent him dozens on dozens of Stefan's presentations on YouTube. He follows me on Twitter and sees me frequently Tweet FDR links, but he is choosing not to watch them. I've reached out to him a few times to have some discussions but he looks for excuses not to talk. I don't know what else to do at this point.

[ModernHeretic]

For sure.  Pretty much nobody in my family has been red pilled yet.

 

My background: lifelong Democrat- voted for Bill twice and John Kerry once.  Voted Libertarian last election.  BA degree in Economics.  Love to read about history, finance, economics, ethnic/tribal/racial conflict, and politics.  Definitely voting for Trump this time around.

 

Many on my Dad's side of the family are union members.  When I talk to them about the wage/worker implication of open borders (something Hillary SAYS she wants), all they can talk about is how he said Rosie is a disgusting pig.  I try to explain that open borders means lower wages for Americans, but they have no comebacks to offer.

 

I try to bring them back to the actual issues (globalism/open borders, war with russia, neocon destruction of our middle east policy, etc) but they just endlessly whine about pussy grabbing or that some MAGA hats are made in china.

 

It's really like talking to braindead zombies.  But they have been zombified by the press and academia.  Twelve years ago, no doubt, I would be as mindless and lemming-like as they are.

 

I gave up trying to get them to see the truth.  I have come to the conclusion that they will personally have to be negatively affected by "vibrancy", open borders, and globalism before they finally start trying to figure out what is occurring in Europe and the anglosphere.

 

What finally red pilled me:

1. The book "culture of critique" by Kevin Macdonald

2. The book "the history and geography of human genes by cavalli sforza (yeah, we are not "all the same under the skin")

3. The book "sociobiology" by EO Wilson 

 

If you are a white goy and you read all of these books cover to cover, there is no turning back.  You are red pilled and can no longer think like the rest of the leftstream fed lemmings out there.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

I came out and blasted it in everyone's face with a long FB Note explaining where I was coming from, how I arrived at my conclusion, why it's important that anyone reading it support Trump as well, and why I don't give a shit if you don't like me for it.

 

I think I lost 1 FB friend, had some high-fallutin' responses, some of which are coming around now that I keep posting and producing more stuff.

 

It's all about posture, and I think it's really important that we get this. Besides rigging the election and controlling the media, the biggest advantage the "left" has is making people feel small and feel like an asshole for supporting Trump. Flip it on them. They're the assholes for wanting to disintegrate Western Civilization and calling you a racist whenever you try to discuss important issues. 

 

I think there are massive amounts of people out there still scratching their chins and wondering what to do, and the simple act of someone they know standing up confidently, saying, "I'm supporting Trump and fuck you if you can't debate me on rational terms! I will take you on in a discussion any day and devour you like the intellectual infant that you are." will help them change their minds and adjust their behavior.

 

If you want to check out the verbage of my FB Note, you can do it here.

[taraelizabeth21]

I came out and blasted it in everyone's face with a long FB Note explaining where I was coming from, how I arrived at my conclusion, why it's important that anyone reading it support Trump as well, and why I don't give a shit if you don't like me for it.

 

I think I lost 1 FB friend, had some high-fallutin' responses, some of which are coming around now that I keep posting and producing more stuff.

 

It's all about posture, and I think it's really important that we get this. Besides rigging the election and controlling the media, the biggest advantage the "left" has is making people feel small and feel like an asshole for supporting Trump. Flip it on them. They're the assholes for wanting to disintegrate Western Civilization and calling you a racist whenever you try to discuss important issues. 

 

I think there are massive amounts of people out there still scratching their chins and wondering what to do, and the simple act of someone they know standing up confidently, saying, "I'm supporting Trump and fuck you if you can't debate me on rational terms! I will take you on in a discussion any day and devour you like the intellectual infant that you are." will help them change their minds and adjust their behavior.

 

If you want to check out the verbage of my FB Note, you can do it here.

 

Nothing significant to add other than to say I thought this was a v eloquent response

I wish people would stop using the word "support" incorrectly.

 

Anyways, this is the cognitive dissonance I'm trying to combat. If you accept that person A can never have a greater claim of ownership over person B than person B does, engaging in political voting is not consistent with this. Because with your vote, you are saying that human subjugation is valid, you choose that particular master, and that you transfer to them ownership of everybody within the jurisdiction they're running for. If this bothers you, then don't vote. Instead, live according to your values.

 

If you accept that the state is the aggressor, and the population are those being subjected, then your moral outrage against me and others who support Trump is hypocritical. You have to apply the same standards to yourself as you're applying to the rest of us. You think your inaction is not action in itself? None of us fucking like that the state exists, but it does. And in this situation we have a responsibility to each other to ensure that our society remains as free as it possibly can be so we can continue to even have this conversation. You realize that Clinton wants to shut down sites like this? She HATES the alt-right and alternative media in general. She's made direct threats against Breitbart and now, with the ICANN transfer, do you think it won't be possible for her to come after Stefan? To shut him down?

 

Not only are you not voting, but you're actively attempting to get people to agree with you, or at least you're arguing against people like me. In the current environment, which is one with a state, that means that you're advocating for a world view which may lead people on this site to abstain from the election, which is not good for Trump. If it's not good for Trump it's good for Clinton, and Clinton wants to destroy freedom of speech and take us all to war. If you agree that I don't own you, well, apply the same logic to yourself. By NOT voting, by refusing to acknowledge the danger that Clinton represents to humanity, you are acting as if you own us all. That your devotion to an abstract principle is more important than the threat that Hillary Clinton poses to humanity at large. It's arrogance of the highest order.

 

Ultimately the state is the aggressor, and is putting us in this situation, but that is the reality. Do we focus on how unfair it is, or do we fight? If we didn't have a state this wouldn't even be a conversation, but we do have one. So we have a responsibility to make sure that we do whatever we have to do to keep it in check. 

 

You do realize that you're attacking people who want to protect you, your life, and your freedom of speech? Trump will stand against the political establishment, Hillary will take it to its logical conclusion. Your inaction and your arguments will directly lead to catastrophic scenarios. How do you have that right? How do you have the right to sit in your ivory tower and look down on the rest of us, who are trying to protect our society? You would be willing to risk the lives of all the people you know, the society you enjoy, because you aren't willing to acknowledge the reality of what is occurring here? If arguing against the state is so important to you, then why aren't you going to do everything you can to protect free speech? 

 

I'm not sure why you're asking for a definition of "support," I think it's pretty obvious that it means I agree with Trump policies, am planning to vote for him, and will argue on his behalf because I want him to be president rather than Hillary Clinton. Because I do not want to go to war, and I want to be safe from the destruction she would bring.

[dsayers]

By NOT voting, by refusing to acknowledge the danger that Clinton represents to humanity, you are acting as if you own us all.

Perhaps the steepest cliff of upside down "logic" I've ever seen! This is called an unchosen positive obligation and it is an unethical proposition.

 

The only way any person is capable of the level of destruction you describe is if there's a State and there is widespread belief in its legitimacy. Which voting validates and perpetuates.

[Troubador]

Whilst I would agree with you about voting for Trump, going after dsayers the way you have actually self detonates your argument. If we're all ultimately sovereign then surely he is free to follow his own conscience and express his views? If we've reached the point where he isn't or shouldn't express his ideas we actually lost a long time ago.

 

A vote for Clinton is madness, a vote for Trump is a gamble (albeit one I cannot make being British although I would certainly advocate anyone to make!), not voting does not = a vote for Clinton. Nobody knows what the precise outcome will be.

 

Also the very notion that Clinton winning = the end of civilization is overstating the case. Would it be a setback? Absolutely. However what needs to be understood is the Trump campaign is already a victory in the sense that it has revealed a powerful and engaged cohort of people who are pro-liberty, pro-free speech and anti globalist who through a great many acts of non-violent activism, civil disobedience and many many other methods can persuade and shift things back.

 

If your arguing a vote for Trump is the easiest and best course of action I'm with you, and from a reading of the boards you're winning that argument. If your saying a vote for Trump is the ONLY path the victory I'm afraid you've made dsayers case for him. In fact in even making that case, and if that's what people are hinging all their hopes on the sense of failure people will feel if either Trump fails to get in or acts in a way contrary to your hopes it will generate monumental levels of apathy, and make pulling together that much harder. Don't let's lose the war for trying to win the battle.

 

Preserving Western values is a long haul objective. Get hunkered down and make allies where you can. Trying to shame dsayers is a tactic of the left. Accept he has a different view, but get ready to stand with him when the time comes, because that time is coming.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

taraelizabeth21, your response to dsayers was more eloquent than anything I wrote in my previous post.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Whilst I would agree with you about voting for Trump, going after dsayers the way you have actually self detonates your argument. If we're all ultimately sovereign then surely he is free to follow his own conscience and express his views? If we've reached the point where he isn't or shouldn't express his ideas we actually lost a long time ago.

 

A vote for Clinton is madness, a vote for Trump is a gamble (albeit one I cannot make being British although I would certainly advocate anyone to make!), not voting does not = a vote for Clinton. Nobody knows what the precise outcome will be.

 

Also the very notion that Clinton winning = the end of civilization is overstating the case. Would it be a setback? Absolutely. However what needs to be understood is the Trump campaign is already a victory in the sense that it has revealed a powerful and engaged cohort of people who are pro-liberty, pro-free speech and anti globalist who through a great many acts of non-violent activism, civil disobedience and many many other methods can persuade and shift things back.

 

If your arguing a vote for Trump is the easiest and best course of action I'm with you, and from a reading of the boards you're winning that argument. If your saying a vote for Trump is the ONLY path the victory I'm afraid you've made dsayers case for him. In fact in even making that case, and if that's what people are hinging all their hopes on the sense of failure people will feel if either Trump fails to get in or acts in a way contrary to your hopes it will generate monumental levels of apathy, and make pulling together that much harder. Don't let's lose the war for trying to win the battle.

 

Preserving Western values is a long haul objective. Get hunkered down and make allies where you can. Trying to shame dsayers is a tactic of the left. Accept he has a different view, but get ready to stand with him when the time comes, because that time is coming.

 

We're all indeed ultimately sovereign and free to follow our own conscience and express are views. However, unless you emphasize evidence and reason in this, that statement is functionally not different from solipsism or moral relativism. 

 

The whole point about the Trump thing in FDR is, and of course we could totally be wrong, is that the evidence is so overwhelming that a Clinton win in this election spells the doom of Western Civilization (mostly because of the tipping point with illegal immigrants and their voting patterns), and that Trump will actually do what he is proposing. Alllllll the things that we understand about politicians and the way they are corrupted doesn't seem to apply to him*.

 

*The one exemption to this, of course, is that power corrupts when you have it. We'll see what happens to Trump once he gets the Ring of Power.

 

An analogy: a person is being shot at and doing his best to protect and defend himself from his assailant. There is a third party bystander to this situation who has the means and ability to do something about it without a whole lot of cost to him or even a risk of his safety (maybe something like calling the police). Is this person ultimate sovereign and free to follow his own conscience and express his views, that it's none of his business and that he should just walk away? Yes. Does that make him an asshole? Yes.

 

The situation now is even worse than that analogy, because the assailant in this case is shooting at everyone. To not make an attempt to protect and defend yourself and others, especially that this attempt can be done in relative safety and with minimal resources (you won't get shot for voting, and talk and internet space is cheap), you're actually promoting everyone being shot at by the assailant.

 

Thus taraelizabeth21's hostile response to dsayers isn't an initiation of hostility, it's a response to it.

[taraelizabeth21]

Perhaps the steepest cliff of upside down "logic" I've ever seen! This is called an unchosen positive obligation and it is an unethical proposition.

 

The only way any person is capable of the level of destruction you describe is if there's a State and there is widespread belief in its legitimacy. Which voting validates and perpetuates.

 

You accuse me of perpetuating the evils of the State by voting. My response is: if you're concerned about perpetuating the State, then your inaction (not voting) and your action (arguing that others should do the same) will lead to Clinton getting elected, which will mean a direct increase in State power. 

 

Literally, the State will grow and expand in scope if other people follow your example in this instance. But more than that, both you and I are the victims here, victims of State power. So you can't rightly accuse me of being unethical, because I'm not the one initiating force here, the State is. 

 

Given that that is the case we could all close up our laptops and go home because none of us is really culpable as individuals for what goes down. But if we decide to do that there are practical consequences. There is still time left; there is still some choice left to us. So again, your devotion to the purity of your ideals will mean the death of those ideals in real life. If every high IQ, capable person in this community just decides to up and say "Fuck it, I'm AnCap, I decline to participate for moral reasons," well, guess what: Clinton wins. We lose our platforms for free speech, we lose our economic stability, and quite possibly a lot of people lose their lives. 

 

So, to address your issue of the "unchosen positive obligation," I can't argue that you're immoral if you don't vote. You're not the one initiating force. Likewise, you can't accuse me of being immoral if I do, because neither am I. What I can point out, however, is your inconsistent position on this subject--and the hypocrisy of accusing me of perpetuating the State. If your goal is to shrink the State, the best way to do that is to vote for the candidate in this particular context who is going to shrink the state. The consequences of not doing so, while they cannot ultimately, morally be attributed exclusively to your inaction based on UPB framework, will ensue regardless. We are all living under this threat, the only way we can all get out of it is to coordinate and choose the safest course for our society. In this case, the safest course to avoid war, economic destruction, and an increase in State power, is voting Trump.

[taraelizabeth21]

Whilst I would agree with you about voting for Trump, going after dsayers the way you have actually self detonates your argument. If we're all ultimately sovereign then surely he is free to follow his own conscience and express his views? If we've reached the point where he isn't or shouldn't express his ideas we actually lost a long time ago.

 

A vote for Clinton is madness, a vote for Trump is a gamble (albeit one I cannot make being British although I would certainly advocate anyone to make!), not voting does not = a vote for Clinton. Nobody knows what the precise outcome will be.

 

Also the very notion that Clinton winning = the end of civilization is overstating the case. Would it be a setback? Absolutely. However what needs to be understood is the Trump campaign is already a victory in the sense that it has revealed a powerful and engaged cohort of people who are pro-liberty, pro-free speech and anti globalist who through a great many acts of non-violent activism, civil disobedience and many many other methods can persuade and shift things back.

 

If your arguing a vote for Trump is the easiest and best course of action I'm with you, and from a reading of the boards you're winning that argument. If your saying a vote for Trump is the ONLY path the victory I'm afraid you've made dsayers case for him. In fact in even making that case, and if that's what people are hinging all their hopes on the sense of failure people will feel if either Trump fails to get in or acts in a way contrary to your hopes it will generate monumental levels of apathy, and make pulling together that much harder. Don't let's lose the war for trying to win the battle.

 

Preserving Western values is a long haul objective. Get hunkered down and make allies where you can. Trying to shame dsayers is a tactic of the left. Accept he has a different view, but get ready to stand with him when the time comes, because that time is coming.

 

Trump is not the only path to victory, but Clinton wants to start a war with Russia. This is not a complicated concept. Trump wants international cooperation, Clinton wants war. There are multiple sources online which will demonstrate her Hawkish policies. So, yes, the movement will continue with or without Trump. Still, I'd prefer not to see my husband (and potentially myself??) drafted to fight WWIII. I'd prefer to significantly reduce the likelihood of nuclear war. I'd like the middle east to be put back together.

 

I'd also prefer not to have my news outlets like Breitbart shut down because they disagree with Clinton's politics and are willing to report on her myriad of scandals. The damage that this woman can do should not be underestimated, so I am warning against it, and I believe dsayers perspective to be a dangerous one that will encourage other people in the United States not to act while we still have the chance. I have no interest in "shaming" anyone.