Want to understand

[tallslenderguy]

This goes out to Trump supporters. i want to know and, hopefully understand your perspective. Using two recent speeches that Trump delivered, both of which are available unedited, so it's not someone else's reporting or opinion, just Trump.  The first speech would be his recent delivery to the UN, the second would be his recent (September 30,2025) speech to the leadership of the US military at Quantico Virginia.

Any Trump supporters who are willing to, would like to know your views on things like content, delivery and any and all thoughts and feelings you have about them. 

 

[viking8x6]

Moderator's note:

A request to those who are not either Trump supporters (or conservatives who are not Trump supporters): Please be respectful of the contributions our right-wing brothers choose to share here. Shouting them down, telling them they are crazy or evil, or otherwise abusing them will not improve our communication.

[KinshipLab]

For full disclosure neither a Trump supporter nor anti-Trump, but think I’d pass as more conservative than many if not most on this site. 1) UN speech: a) extemporised without benefit of teleprompter. Seemed to tap Trump’s themes of unfair  trade and defense deals, manipulation of climate change concerns to steer economies towards more state intervention and wreck energy security, ending wars, cultural and crime concerns relating to illegal immigration. Tone seemed typical Trump braggadocio, affection for little people and leaders he disagreed with (comments about really liking Lula da Silva). Also offers of help, e.g., US energy sales. I’d imagine it could be a bit embarrassing to be in the audience but also that audience would want to hear Trump’s views. I heard nothing that would make me embarrassed to be an American; at the same time there are some proxy back stories he seemed to obscure, e.g., drugs from Venezuela but not Colombia; Gaza genocide.  2) Dept of War speech: combo of braggadocio, motivational praise, and back-handed also motivational praise, seemed slightly patronizing, slightly appreciative. Seems similar in approach to many speeches I’ve heard from various of my past organizations’ leaders, most of whom give an impression that if it weren’t for them, the organization would have continued in a sorry direction. Best analysis I’ve read is that the whole convocation was really about enabling coordinating two of the “coms” around upcoming coordinated military maneuvers in Latin America and Middle East to shut down Venezuela- Iran cooperation.  But doing it in a way that obscures it thus getting everyone into a meeting. This seems typical Trump, where you can’t take what’s going on on the surface at face value, e.g.  pretending to negotiate with Hamas in UAE to set them up for Israeli bombing. I’m hoping it lands with my liberal brethren that over focusing on what Trump says in public is not necessarily the best way to “understand” him.  
I only jumped in when I saw that none of our real right-wing barebacker brethren had yet responded (and wanted to review the files shared). But like the OP I ‘d be interested in their take, hoping one shares his skinny. 

[tobetrained]

Just joined and, somehow, stumble first into this convo! What a world! I answer as a former Democrat now independent.

The Trump vote was not just from those on the conservative side but those done with Democrats and the progressive wing. note: I voted for a random 3rd party as a protest vote to both major parties.

Personally, due to progressive politics, I'm struggling to find a job. I've been told by former colleagues in those companies: They said "...they won't hire a man "(position seniority was lowered to best-qualified woman-- someone who didn't make final round of candidates for position), "...they won't hire a white man" (position scrapped and combine with another), and -- directly in the interview: "We believe in DEI policies. Why should we hire you?" [again, I'm a white man]

Here are two other scenarios which demonstrate the issue with progressive politics gone wild:

1) last Halloween here in my building, the building manager says: "we won't allow trick-or-treat as it's not inclusive enough." Do I need to explain how ridiculous this is? I really hope not.

2) the women's soccer pro team (new) in Boston was announced last year. They're initial marketing campaign, "...too many balls in sports." (or whatever). The initial response was "that was transphobic." Are you kidding me? A woman's organization starts by making a "joke" about male genitalia and the only (initial) push back was transphobia. Imagine a men's club put out a marketing tag line, "too many [cats] in sports." Both are wrong. It actually took two months before one of the major national or local news services reported it as male-bashing -- which it was. It should be clear too, male owners have had to sell their teams or executives fired for that or less. It's not clear to me anything was required here -- though the team changed their name.

I write these as example of how far the pendulum as swung broadly. I write on two trump-specific issues below:

As for Trump directly, I don't like him or how he goes about things. But he gets credit for forcing NATO members to start seriously talking about their own self-defense and stop using the US as a shield to avoid their own defense spending. Few countries lived up to their 2% of GDP requirement and now he's got a 5% annual agreement (by 2030, I think). Whether they live up to that or not is a different convo. But now, even German Chancellor Merz publicly acknowledged (in a BBC interview) Europe has been free-riding off the US for decades. And it has. There are a whole batch or reasons but include green politics -- but FAR from limited to that -- defense production is VERY non-green.

Or, take Greenland and say you believe in global warming. Russia has claimed the Arctic circle... which includes areas of Greenland. Irrelevant now but not in the future, if you believe in global warming. Denmark is in no position to defend itself from Russia let alone Greenland. Even NATO itself has done nothing. Greenland may have an army of polar bears -- but drones are more effective than they. Isn't it the the responsibility of our President to defend our own rights? In this case, why should we allow another country to close us in on both sides (Bering Strait on the west and Greenland on the east). It's actually negligence (of both Dems and Reps, as well as NATO), and clearly Russia doesn't care about human lives.

I could go on -- on many different topics. But Trump's voters were those who support him and those tired of how crazy the politic left has become.

[tobetrained]

@tallslenderguy just a quick update, re: Denmark and Greenland. A couple days after I wrote above, Denmark HAS actually begun to do something, finally, re: Greenland. I didn't see the info until today.

[think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9n790j878o

[tallslenderguy]

Waking this thread up. We have a years worth of the Trump administration and agenda.  A year ago, we had several supporters and defenders of the Trump administration, but none of them responded to this question.  But my questions remain, i do want to understand, because i do not believe all of those who voted for or originally supported Trump can be fit into one neat group (e.g. "MAGA"), and that there is the ever present inclination (and danger?) of stereotyping... which i think we as gay guys should know better?   In an effort to parse out the diverse:

1. Did you vote for Tump?

2. What were the reasons that you voted for Trump?

3. Do you believe you got what you voted for? 

 

[hntnhole]

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

which i think we as gay guys should know better?

Of course we not only should know better, we should understand that there are other folks (possessing equal agency as we do) with points of view that make no sense to us, just as our p.o.v makes no sense to them.  And there's everything right and nothing wrong with discussing opposing points of view (assuming a certain level of decent manners is observed).  No one enjoys being dissed, thus it follows that no one should do that to others, either in person, or from behind some electronic screen.  

Throwing typo-turds at each other advances no one's p.o.v.  I completely agree that we gay guys, fucking on the fringe of "acceptable" behavior, should know better.  Bad manners impress no one.  Decency of discourse invites said decency in return.  We, of all people, should understand that.  

[PozTalkAuthor]

I've always wondered why some LGBT, black, people with disability, etc. choose to vote for far-right movements but maybe it's the wrong question: what do progressives WRONG, that's more complex to answer IMHO, our positions are fragile and we must try to gain people's trust again. Starting from self-criticism, by beginning to look around our "comfort zone". I don't mention Trump specifically because it's all over the world. Italy has Salvini and Vannacci, two pro-Trump/putin folks. Meloni, the prime-minister, is a woman, and is right-wing oriented; less extreme than the other two, but there she is. 

In France, Marine Le Pen is a woman, and is far-right. Last but not least, Alice Weidel from Germany is lesbian, married to a non-white woman, adopted 2 or 3 kids. And she's one leader of AFD, Alternative Für Deutschland far-right party (Elon Musk has attempted and attempts to pressure Europe to follow far-right). In UK there's Nigel Farage, in Hungary we know Orbân, south America has its far-right movements too. Not to talk about Santiago Abascal (Vox party) in Spain.

Well, there are many, many women and LGBT folks voting for these.

From my progressive point of view though, I think it's too easy, dramatically too easy, to pose this question: "why do they vote this way?"

I think the question must be reversed: what did WE do wrong?

If we want people's trust again, we should think back. Talking about inclusion in many perspectives, not thinking we're the only ones to have the correct way of thinking.

One guy here has already brought the "diversity policies" in companies matter. 

I am not against the philosophy originating DEI itself, because most people self-claimed "pro-merit" are the ones who feel as their own human right, to discriminate someone for sex orientation, skin color, disability, HIV status, etc. The American army itself is pro-merit, against DEI, and if you are trans or HIV positive you have no longer chances. A white, hetero and neg, has more chances than another, for their anti-DEI policy. 

So? If extreme DEI is wrong, the other one is worse! 

The conflict exists, needless to pretend nothing; if I have to hire a programmer and have two candidates, but one free place only. And I have one white-hetero-cis without disabilities, and I have a [random underrepresented group] person. With SAME professional skills. I would make a mistake hiring the one """normal""" _because he's """normal""" and the same I'd be wrong to hire the other one _because_ they're [part of random underrepresented group]. 

Laws about diversity should consider this: "test abilities of both, put both on an apprentice period, then choose according to real merit". On the paper, both can write anything inside a resume or linkedin profile. But they can't lie if they face work head-on. 

The wrong way is forcing to hire percentages of underrepresented. If you have to hire 50 percent latinos and a Caucasian with suitable experience comes to your place, sending him away because then you overcome the percentage of caucasians, isn't appropriate. Same for the opposite. If you have already overcome the percentage of [underrepresented] and you have another one coming, while no """normalized""" ones with same skills, you should hire that one. I even know about companies who prefer paying penalties rather than hiring people with disability. Because there is no EDUCATION about it, percentages without awareness are just slogans.

I also have to tell this. In 2022 I came out at work as HIV positive. No issue after that, but it's another story. But at yearly webinar/course on diversity and inclusion, I took the mic, brutally:

you discuss about feeling comfortable in talking about religion, sexuality, disability, skin color. But which DEI program counts HIV? Who would feel comfortable to talk about health this way? Who is on ease when sharing they are under chemoterapy regime for cancer? Inclusion is complex, is not just made of charts and propaganda. Facts, folks. Facts.

I almost covered half the webinar as the teacher had NOTHING MORE to say. I was hired for my skills in computer and security, not for my status and sex orientation; I kept it private for years. Gradually building trust, and coming out when I felt on ease to, not being obliged to. DEI should make you feel comfortable in being yourself REGARDLESS of who you are, not about hiring someone just for "diversity" criteria.

 

Then, about progressive extremism vs. far-right, I'd suggest a book to read, for reflection: it's by Caroline Fourest, offended generation. I think it's in English as well. I hope, at least!

And about far-right / politics, I think safety is the key they're pushing, and we must be aware it's a problem. Computer attacks, on-street attacks, my mother has been robbed a couple weeks ago; there are too many folks who do not follow the simple rules (even pissing on monuments), then far-right propaganda pushes on immigrants only, while this behaviour comes from anywhere. But with those problems at least perceived as urgent, far-right has found the simplest way to persuade people of being able to solve it. And they fell into the trap. 

 

[tallslenderguy]

5 hours ago, PozTalkAuthor said:

From my progressive point of view though, I think it's too easy, dramatically too easy, to pose this question: "why do they vote this way?"

I think the question must be reversed: what did WE do wrong?

 

 

i appreciate what i perceive as the intent of this, and perhaps i can add to the point of my questions for clarification.

i think that proposing "what did we do wrong" is to propose self reflection, which i will always agree with.  To ask: "why did you vote for Trump,"  is different that asking "why do they vote this way."  i think you may infer something that is not implied.  It is not a question with judgement attached, it is a literal query asked with the intention of trying to find out and understand the reason/s individuals voted for Trump. i do not presume their reasons to be good or bad. Thus the follow-up question: "do you believe you got what you voted for."  

i believe we can gain insight into our self through self reflection, but i believe it is never a perfect process because we are all imperfect beings. So, while i think it is important to develop skills of introspection, i believe it is valuable, even vital, to look for input from others, with the understanding that they, like us, are also imperfect beings. To me, mature exchange involves mutual acknowledgment of our ability to be wrong, and a desire to see something as it is as best as we can.  In that mutual pursuit of insight, i think we can help each other see and understand better. 

i can ask myself "what did we do wrong," but that does not mean i will see the same things that another might see. i may totally miss seeing things if all i do is ask myself. Asking those who voted for Trump: "why did you vote for Trump," is an open ended question that can be answered by them pointing out what they believed is/was wrong with Harris, for instance. Or, they may simply cite a Trump position and answer what voted for vs what they voted against. Either way, it can give us more understanding of their point of view to ask them vs just speculating on our own.