What should be my attitude concerning the election of Trump? 56.6 - 62

[Liselle]

(Also on a more "practical" note, following from Butterfly's thoughts, Trump might be de-incentivized from starting WWIII simply because he'd lose too many of his properties to bombing, and he wouldn't want that...)

 

[rosada]

Thanks all for your thoughts and interpretations. Before I sign off I wanted to say one thing that might correct a misunderstanding. I had mentioned how unpleasant I found the comments posted online in support of Trump. It wasn't that people supported Trump that I was finding so disturbing - it was the way the supporters were expressing themselves, rude, hateful name calling and so forth.
Anyway, I very much appreciate folks sharing their insights with me and so having no wish to wear out my welcome or burn our lovely nest I bid this tread a fond farewell.
Rosada

 

[diamanda]

(Also on a more "practical" note, following from Butterfly's thoughts, Trump might be de-incentivized from starting WWIII simply because he'd lose too many of his properties to bombing, and he wouldn't want that...)

Obama multiplied the US war fronts, and Clinton was ready to do the same and go to war with Russia.
Trump has said that he wants less war fronts and wants peace with Russia.
If he does what he said, then the planet is much safer with him than with the known warmongers.

It wasn't that people supported Trump that I was finding so disturbing - it was the way the supporters were expressing themselves, rude, hateful name calling and so forth.

Well, the only hateful name-calling in this thread is people calling Trump Hitler.
Seriously, we should all wait and see IF Trump continues the Obama/Clinton/Bush world-wide warmongering or not.

Fun fact: Obama has deported more immigrants than any other US president.
"As of 2015, more than 2.5 million undocumented people had been deported by immigration authorities since President Obama took office in 2009, a total which is indeed record-setting. During the two terms of his predecessor, President George W. Bush, just over 2 million people were deported."

So let's just wait and see what the new president will actually do.
Actions are what counts, nothing else.

 

[Liselle]

Trump has said that he wants less war fronts and wants peace with Russia.

See, here's where I don't know enough about it (I really don't like politics one bit and mostly avoid it, but then the result is I don't know things ). Somewhere people have gotten the idea he'd start WWIII?

Fun fact: Obama has deported more immigrants than any other US president.
"As of 2015, more than 2.5 million undocumented people had been deported by immigration authorities since President Obama took office in 2009, a total which is indeed record-setting. During the two terms of his predecessor, President George W. Bush, just over 2 million people were deported."

Google found that quote here:
http://www.snopes.com/obama-deported-more-people/

But after reading that article I still don't understand it. Why is this seen as still such a problem if we've deported such record-setting numbers of people?

So let's just wait and see what the new president will actually do.
Actions are what counts, nothing else.

Agreed...

 

[Liselle]

Oh, and in case it's not as obvious as I thought, this was a tongue-in-cheek remark.

(Also on a more "practical" note, following from Butterfly's thoughts, Trump might be de-incentivized from starting WWIII simply because he'd lose too many of his properties to bombing, and he wouldn't want that...)

 

[diamanda]

But after reading that article I still don't understand it. Why is this seen as still such a problem if we've deported such record-setting numbers of people?

The deportation is not a problem per se. What bothers me is the hypocricy. The anti-Trump camp blames him big time because he said he'll deport millions. And so what, since the other camp does the exact same?

This is a very common gaslighting trick: accuse the other first of something you are doing yourself. Attack is the best defence, so as to deflect from your own dirt. So many people have read in mass media about the deportations Trump plans to do, but you don't hear much about Obama's deportations.

Somewhere people have gotten the idea he'd start WWIII?

Same gaslighting tactics as above, only in this case Trump's words are not pro-war. We can only hope that he will act according to his words (I'm not holding my breath, but let's see). Obama had promised that he'll shut down Guantanamo and didn't do it - politicians have a tendency to talk empty waffle.

 

[radiofreewill]

One of the things, I feel, that all of us have to contend with is maintaining a clear distinction between confirmation bias and objective principle in choosing how we wish to be governed.

What is confirmation bias?

“A well-established central finding of psychological research, concerning “confirmation bias” or “motivated reasoning” (which are two phrases referring to people’s tendency to believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of any contrary facts), is that individuals evaluate whatever they read according to their pre-existing ideas about the given subject. Specifically, psychologists have found that people tend to pay attention to whatever confirms their existing ideas, and tend to ignore whatever contradicts those pre-established beliefs. This tendency most people have (though the research studies make clear also that some rare individuals do not possess this unfortunate tendency), to reinforce their beliefs, even in the face of contrary evidence – even in the face of contrary evidence that disproves those beliefs – has been found to be especially strong if a person is conservative in his/her beliefs…”

So, for instance, a rich person, traditionally conservative, could read Matthew 13:12 and easily conclude: It's great to be rich! God is on our side!

Or, a poor person, traditionally liberal, could read Luke 6:20 and 6:24, and easily conclude: It's great to be poor! God is on our side!

That's confirmation bias in action: crushing win/devastating loss ~ in the extreme of which one side apocalyptically wipes out the other. Pretty uncivilized and low-brow, huh?

That's how most of us spent the election ~ reading the news selectively to confirm our biases ~ and then righteously arguing with each other like it was the end of the world.

However, taking one step back and looking for a greater truth, one might conclude, like our Founders did, that everyone ~ rich and poor ~ can win in a principled and just world ~ a civilized world.

With confirmation bias, either side can swamp the boat of principled civilization ~ for everybody ~ and then all we're left with is tribal barbarism ~ known the world around as 'the beatdown'.

It's the function of principled leadership to see past the shortcomings of confirmation bias to the benefits of win-win solutions. Therefore, the loyalties of our leaders must be to the integrity of the system ~ for the benefit of all, including themselves ~ entrusting the support of their true believers to the framework of principled governance that supports everyone.

Like it, or not, Trump is our president-elect. What remains to be seen is whether he steps into the White House as the President of all Americans, or as a strongman at the head of his winning team?

Every civilized person wants Trump to succeed as a principled leader, and fears his culture-warmongering as destabilizing to our society, and to the world at large.

Let's keep talking to each other ~ outside the echo chambers of group confirmation bias ~ listening for understanding ~ and working out our differences with win-win solutions that we can all support...

...because the alternative is a guaranteed lose-lose.

Sorry for the length ~ jm2c! :bows: