Seriously, they are both former military, my dad was in for like 30 years, how do they like the drunk secretary? I get that he saw combat, but being in combat doesn’t automatically make you qualified for… well anything except therapy and medical care.
You can’t reason people out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
they’re selfish and dumb and choose to be ignorant
simple as that. they might be nice people in some respects, but the above still holds true
-
Decades of propaganda
-
I’m not trying to insult here, but your parents aren’t that smart. One of mine fell for it too.
Bottom line is if you fall for extremely obvious propaganda you are not, and never were, very intelligent.
I don’t think they aren’t smart in a logical sense, I think its more of a lack of critical thinking and a focus on short term gains (which i would argue aren’t even that good lol)
-
It’s easy to win over weak people.
Party of suckers and losers.
I’ve got a former military buddy who is all about Pete because “he’s not gonna let the fatties and the faggots fuck up our military anymore.”
Nevermind that the navy has been called gay since their inception, or that muhreens have zero self discipline outside of a military situation, or that the air force has run more drug than most cartels, it’s the “fatties and faggots” that are the problem.
I always knew my buddy was dumb, but it took that conversation for me to figure out that it went all the way down to the core of who he was as a person.
Yeah, lot of bigots are self aware enough to try to hide their hatred and point to other things when it comes to making what they support more palatable to those who might not be. They aren’t complete idiots like some immediately assume which is why they have been underestimated by the opposite side and gained such huge traction and seen increasing success.
Even the dumb ones don’t try to show the full extent of the bigotry, since they know there are still some in society who resist such ideologies despite growing embracement of it.
I’ve got a couple dumb friends/colleagues too but just change the subject when they mention politics
Situational sexuality has assured that every navy has been pretty gay (that is, sexually adaptable) since the inception of maritime travel.
Probably because he won’t raise their taxes or the taxes of our oppressors.
It’s all about the money, and money brings out the worst in people.
They watched him on FOXnews, thought he was “cute”, about like a Sajak or a Kardashian. So why not put him in charge of the world’s most lethal military?
easy. he’s a white republican man.
Your parents are bad people
Well, bad the way Edmund Povensie was bad while under the guile of the White Witch, or the way the Little Mermaid was bad (i.e. poor ) at seeing through the sea hag’s hard sell.
Not bad per se, more very misinformed and very influenced dare I say manipulated, just sad yeah
I don’t make a distinction between the two. If you make a mistake, you made a mistake. If you keep making mistakes, and never learn from them, and insist that you don’t make mistakes then you are a bad person.
These are not children without life experience, they are adults who have seen, and experienced, and learned, and been corrected, and have still chosen evil.
I feel ya with this, but to paint this as black and white is to miss important nuance.
They’re deluded. As such, it’s an error to see them as evil in the same way that it is to see a person that’s high on meth and dangerous or schizophrenic and hostile as being evil.
They’re no less dangerous, don’t get me wrong, but to see them as bad is, I think, a critical misunderstanding of what’s going on here that leads people to think like this.
I didn’t say evil, I said bad people.
If propaganda can convince you to hate people just because of where they’re from, you’re not a good person.
Now, if you realize you were a bad person and work on being a good person, you can become one. If you know what you’re doing is bad and have no desire to change, then you’re evil.
And none of those are immutable qualities.
Yeah you’re right. I shouldn’t have used the word evil.
I would urge you to examine how propaganda has affected everyone.
Like other posters have said, probably the best choice OP can make is to actually talk to them and maybe not use lemmy for answers.
At this point, I’m not seeing much daylight between the two.
Yeah. It’s hard. It’s been hard for me too.
I’m teaching my kids as I learn for myself; it’s critically important that you not dehumanize people and seek understanding and strive to be compassionate.
I’ve also known people that have voted for trump 1st term to be good people for long enough that I see it as valuable to deeply interrogate the process by which they came to be such as they are now. For me, at least, it feels lazy and dishonest to flatly dismiss them as bad. Even trump 2 voters, I can see that they, nearly all, were submerged in a propaganda machine designed to break people.
Are some of them sociopathic monsters? You bet! Society needs protected from them.
I see the groupthink on both sides as the most dangerous thing though. The manipulation (of all sides) as the enemy. The dismissal of human life as the root problem. Most especially when profit is placed over people, but also when it’s done by either side.
My concern is that dehumanization plays into their hands and I see the dehumanization as a direct path to violent conflict. They want violence because it would free them to use the insurrection act as a means to their ends.
So, to bring it full circle, seeing them as bad and evil and unworthy of compassion or even dialogue plays directly into their hands.
It’s possible.
I’m more likely to say anyone who writes others off as bad people from a 1 dimensional, 3rd party anecdote is not an exemplar of “good people”. But that’s just me.
I guarantee you, they’re bad people who support this guy because they believe he will protect or further their wealth somehow.
I mean how does theoreticallyconservative small government folk support a real estate trust fund baby who openly take bribes, is building himself a castle, and floods the streets with masked, unmarked, paramilitary. Oh and constantly breaks the laws of the land put out by the forefathers along with a whole ton of other laws?
Rapes little girls too.
I mean they can choose to not believe that but trump has them make viral videos of his goon squad. Sure its edited to make them look tough I guess but its hard to disbelieve they are there and maybe just maybe look at the first person cell phone videos that are all around showing how aweful they are.
Because he’s ever so pretty?
Sorry to tell you this but the racism really resonated with them.
Honest answer, as someone in the military:
A LOT of military people lament how “soft” the military has become, and someone coming down on beards, fat, etc, as well as being up front with what the military is for (e.g. Department of War), scratches a whiny itch they’ve always had. Because every old salty sailor and sandy equivalent feels like they came from the Old Guard.
I came from the Old Guard that my peers are nostalgic about. It was terrible and unnecessarily cruel. It was inefficient and left new people floundering instead of supported. The whole thing feels like a cycle of abuse.
But back to the point, they don’t care if he’s underqualified, makes bad and inexperienced military decisions, or has a host of DUIs (“who doesn’t?”). They only care that he’s calling generals fat to their faces and getting rid of beard ememptions.
What’s funny is that nobody alive today was alive and in the military for any major conflict that we were actually victorious in, so what “good old days” are these geezers even pining for? The days where we lost a bunch of soldiers in Vietnam and the ones who survived came back with PTSD and drug addictions?
The good old days where the people in charge could get away with anything, that’s what it comes down to.
nobody alive today was alive and in the military for any major conflict that we were actually victorious in
There are still a handful of WWII vets kicking around
Also depending on how you want to define “major” and “victorious” you could maybe make an argument for Dessert Storm, and possibly the 2003-2011 Iraq War. (Whether we should have been involved in those wars in the first place, and how those wars were fought are separate issues, and I certainly wouldn’t call them “unqualified” victories, but I do think there are absolutely certain angles you could look at them from and make the argument that the US was the victor in those conflicts)
The wars in the Middle East are tricky, though, because to have a “victory” you would need a clear metric for it, a clear goal. It’s not like the US was looking to conquer and annex those countries
If the goal was to completely fuck up a country with little to no (physical, not financial) damage to our home country, mission accomplished, one helluva victory.
If the goal was to stop Terrorism… that’s like the War on Drugs, there’s no winning that.
If the goal was merely to occupy them in order to (temporarily) prevent them from being a staging ground and financial support for Terrorism… I guess that worked? For awhile?
Vietnam and Korea were about stopping Communists from taking over the country. Huge failure on Vietnam, and apparently a draw in Korea (considering the North/South divide). But it was a clear enough goal. The Middle East? Who knows what the specific goal was (other than trillions of dollars to the Military Industrial Complex).
Are they white? Do they have an aversion to non-white people? Do they make enough money to materially benefit from the Trump era tax policies? Yes to any 2 and you’ve got an answer, no to all 3 and I’m as stumped as you are.
