Best products from r/AskTrumpSupporters

> I would say that it is at this point an undeniable fact that left leaning networks do everything short of telling complete lies about Trump. They make suggestions about him that are unfounded.

False. Examples?

> They say bad things about him that if anyone really looked into it deep enough, they'd see its merely a half truth at best. But they're counting on people not really looking into it, they're counting on the fact that people really just read headlines. We all know how guilty everyone is of doing just that.

Many state facts in a way where people don't even have to "really look into it deep". That's how facts work. They analyze what we see throughout the day, and maybe they wrap in it a gripping headline for clicks. However, if they said nothing at all, I would still know what my eyes see and ears hear, and I trust people who aren't proven pathological liars and sly manipulators. Are you telling me truth isn't truth?

> Yes I would say that a portion of what you hear on FOX network is fake news. But it really comes down to the individual journalist who has the story. It is insidious. Such is the nature of propaganda and indoctrination.

Agreed.

> He doesn't try to present himself like every other politician, like a robot full of programmed responses. You never know what he might say. This tells us that he is genuine.

The reason most politicians sound like robots is because they are self aware, and realize words that they say as politicians or potential politicians have much more meaning to people because they are elected to lead those people based on what they propose and how they will represent them - 90% of that is what they say, so they say it carefully, and with thought, even if it's meant to mislead for their own purposes or to stall. Some are talented, well educated or witty enough to respond to people quickly, and comfortably, but sensibly and tactfully. It's called speaking diplomatically, or, diplomacy.

Speaking off the cuff certainly reflects authenticity or genuineness, but you should realize that there are people who are skilled at making people feel comfortable and convinced while taking complete advantage of them simultaneously. Criminals exist don't they? Con men exist, don't they? Magicians exist, don't they? Salesmen exist, don't they? That's how they work. Trump is a salesman and branding specialist, nothing more. Most people can recognize when they are being pitched something, especially BS. If you can't talk normally, and convince me you're educated, and know what you're doing and doing for me, show me, prove it, or GTFOH.

> You never know what he might say.

This is certainly NOT a characteristic of someone I want leading me and my country, and certainly not someone who leads national policy by Tweet who has a history of sounding like a whiny baby, who also commands the world's most powerful military.

> We believe that deep down he is truly a good man, who has been selfish in his younger years, seen the error of some of his ways, and intends to use that knowledge for good. We believe that in his heart of hearts, he loves this country more than any president in almost a century, and he shall fight for it. For us. For the people.

Not sure what you're seeing, but I'd suggest reviewing his past a bit more thoroughly.

> When it comes to supporting Trump, it boils down to whether or not you have faith in his intentions, at least for me that was it.

Agreed. I have zero faith in his intentions. Here's why:

Another NN here once argued - while defending/discussing Trump's racism - that Trump doesn't see race; he's sees one color: GREEN. I actually agree with that in a huge way, but I also think both can be true. Regardless, the point was that he does everything for one thing - MONEY. His own money. He's a textbook malignant narcissist. He's president because he was using the US Presidency as a marketing/branding campaign, got unlucky and slept on the uneducated, the unfortunate and those who felt displaced - who actually voted him in and still defend him by saying things you say. "Oops! I'm president! Could you believe it? Better make some money off it!" That has been his entire attitude which he's packaged for you as "loving his country" and "fighting" for you. He's fighting for more money. That's it. You're helping him, and he doesn't care about you beyond how you can help him do that. If the country inadvertently improves in some minuscule way by it, fine. But don't be naive to think it's a long term win.

He may love the country, but only because he's made a fortune from it and continues to succeed at taking advantage of it, because people let him. The only time he's upset is when people are getting in the way of that, and when smart people - who can see through his "sales" and lies - call him on his BS. I hope for all our sake you come to realize that, but not the hard way. He's poisonous, and everything he touches, dies. I don't wish fellow humans to be poisoned.

>Do you see how illogical that is? You are questioning the preferences of millions of people and instead trying to put your preferred value on somebody's labor.

Markets don't just exist sui generis and are also prone to failure, sometimes in surprising ways. A CEO's salary isn't just determined by his "skills" or by supply and demand; information assymetries; leverage; tax policies; and societal norms and customs also play a role. In the U.S., the average CEO makes 354 times more than the average worker. In Israel and Japan, two countries home to some of the world's more dynamic economies, the gap is 76 and 67 times respectively. Do you think that supply and demand and the skill gap explain the entirety of that disparity?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/25/the-pay-gap-between-ceos-and-workers-is-much-worse-than-you-realize/?utm_term=.7094064afc74

>Skill disparity. The further back in time you go, the simpler an economy was and the skill disparity between the most and least was less. The supply for the skills required at the time was higher and the price was lower. The more complex the economy gets, the more skills will be required for many of its positions and the higher that pay disparity will be.

I agree that skill differentials can help explain some of the disparities in income we see today. But I also think your argument offers a more compelling explanation for the differences in wages we see between now and 1850, not now and the 1970s. Do you think doctors have all of a sudden become vastly more skilled now than they were back then? As I said in my earlier comment, I think that tax policy, globalization (which you could certainly make a good argument has exacerbated the skill differential problem you cite), and the evisceration of unions explain the decline in workers wages relative to CEOs far better than just "the market." Put in other terms, markets don't exist in a vacuum, and each of the factors I've cited above had important influence.

>Source? If you bring up top marginal rates as your answer then I'd like to facepalm in advance. I'd like to see the source accounting for deductions and the income brackets of those marginal rates. I'll answer this one for you: you're wrong. Either way, how is this relevant to your point?

In 1953, the effective tax rate on income for the wealthy was 70 percent. The average effective tax rate, including capital gains, was 49 percent. Today, it's 29 percent.

Source:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-01-02/1950s-tax-fantasy-is-a-republican-nightmare

I get where you're going though, and I totally agree that the most effective way for the government to gain more revenue may not be to raise back income tax brackets back to where they were in the 1950s. We probably need a VAT, especially on luxury goods, and also to more aggressively tax obvious negative externalities (carbon emissions, cough cough).

>>The economy grew faster

Source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth-annual

If you put in a trendline, you'll see that GDP growth in the U.S. has trended downward from over 4% in 1950 to about 2.5% today. My point is that there's very little evidence that higher taxes on the wealthy lead to slow economic growth, despite what supply siders think.

>They still do. Real wages may not grow as fast, but total compensation does. Compensation is a lot more than just the salary.

Source? About what about real compensation? Real compensation per worker? By most measures, real incomes for the middle and lower classes have stagnated or decreased for the past forty years, while incomes of the wealthy have skyrocketed.

>>Absolutely. The way to do that is to vote and get involved, isn't it? Most money in public policy by the wealthy and corporations isn't used to get some advantage, its used to prevent encroaching regulations on their activities which is what government has been doing aggressively since around WW2.

If you include "attempting to accumulate market power" in your definition of "preventing encroaching regulations," I'd agree with you. Most modern corporations don't really exist in a competitive free market - they're either oligopolies (Google, Facebook, etc), local monopolies (the telecom industry), or directly dependent on the government to keep their businesses competitive and afloat (defense industry, agribusiness). Many "encroaching regulations" are designed to shield companies from competition.

For excellent further reading on how the wealthy use their wealth and their power to make themselves wealthier and more powerful that will answer virtually all of your arguments more eloquently than I possible could, please read:

Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, Winner Take All Politics
https://www.amazon.com/Winner-Take-All-Politics-Washington-Richer-Turned/dp/1416588701

Thomas Picketty, Capital in the Twenty First Century
https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/1491591617

Anthony Downs, "An Economic Theory of Political Action in Democracy" :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1827369?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Great questions. I don't think there's an easy or foolproof answer to them.

>should lay people who have zero expertise in a field trust such general academic consensuses as being broadly correct?

Broadly correct? I would think that's a solid way to look at things. I'm in agreement with you.

>Are there good reasons for non-experts to be skeptical about the scientific consensus on vaccines, climate change or evolution?

"Good" reasons? Eh........I'll give a few scattered thoughts here:

• Some people are just going to be contrarians. I don't have any sources to link at the moment, but I think we've all encountered this at some point.
  
• Other people, often those who feel they have been marginalized by society (ex. white people who watched their friends go to college but couldn't go themselves—I'm referring to my own mother in this case), have a deep longing for "secret knowledge" and the sense of power it brings. Michael Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy gives one of the breakdowns of this phenomenon while Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American History (1966) shows that none of this is new. For people who usually possess traits we associate with intelligence (they are intensely curious and often willing to reading extensively) but who feel like they have been unfairly excluded from the centers of intellectual life, the idea that that everyone but them has it wrong is a bit intoxicating. Especially when a small groups of other marginalized people begin listening to them. I am not justifying this phenomenon—it probably shares some of the same social DNA as the incel movement—but I am trying to humanize it.
  
• In addition to these two groups (contrarians and the intellectually marginalized), we might also add those people who have been turned off by the fervency and (please, don't throw anything at me) fundamentalist fanaticism of some popular science devotees. While 99% of modern people simply go about their days with a fairly healthy view of science and knowledge, we are all aware of the loud fringe who wants to paint anyone who disagrees with them as a "science denier" and launch social media crusades against them. Again, I'm trying to use a scalpel here and not a broad brush—it's the militant defenders of Scientism who have (like their religious counterparts) managed to turn some people off.
  
• Then there are what I like to "gut thinkers." These often genuinely good and kind-hearted people often make decisions (like whether to vaccinated their kids or not) based on emotion rather than strict reason. For them, there is nothing in the world more important than their child and the idea of their child being harmed by something they chose to do terrifies them. While they might not ever realize it, they operate in a similar fashion to those people in the "Trolley Problem" who refuse to pull the lever and save some lives because then someone would be dying as a direct result of their action. These people often hear conflicting stories (vaccines are safe vs vaccines cause illnesses) and it troubles their gut to the point where, rather than sitting down to rationalize a solution, they avoid the issue or default to whatever option requires the least amount of direct action.
  
• Lastly we might add those people who would otherwise accept scientific findings but who have one or two core beliefs or predispositions that can complicate things. For example, while we commonly label American fundamentalists as "anti-science," anyone working in that field knows from the work of the eminent George Marsden that they are rather ardently pro-Baconian science—meaning that they absolutely love empirical, directly observable science based on inductive reasoning. What they reject is deductive science and its long-range projections both forwards and backwards in time. I can say from experience that understanding this and acknowledging it in discussions with these people does wonders for the conversation and really disarms a lot of suspicion.
  
• I don't know that there is a perfect solution here, but one possible approach would be to start affirming "folk culture" within modern society. I'm literally just tossing this one out here and I expected it to be a bit controversial, but maybe it will stimulate some discussion. In essence, we (as modern, scientific Westerners) usually don't find it problematic to acknowledge, accommodate, and affirm indigenous forms of knowledge. In fact, we often condemn those who try to "Westernize" others for being colonial or destroying culture. For those who belong to tribes or ethnic enclaves, practicing non-scientific forms of knowledge is seen as a good thing by most of the intellectual elites in the West. But for those born into Western society, there is little socially-acceptable opportunity to seek out and develop alternative forms of knowledge. Perhaps creating a safe social arena for such a "folk culture" to re-emerge could give these above groups a healthy and socially legitimate avenue for exploring and fulfilling some of their deep unmet needs without the subversiveness that presently undermines a lot of the good work that science is doing.

>In which state should I teach?

I’m assuming you’re straight out of college and probably in your early 20’s? I’m also assuming your going to be a career teacher unless things go sideways.

I think you have three options:

1. Teach somewhere fun. Imagine being a teacher in Hawaii! Living in DC, NYC, SF, Miami etc would be a fun experience for a few years.
   
   
2. Teach somewhere that’ll build your resume.
   
   
3. Teach somewhere that has the best pay, benefits and upward mobility.
   
   >Aside from the curriculum standards, do you think I should impart any other knowledge to my students and, if so, what and why?
   
   I think the hardest is making what you teach relevant. If I know WHY I need to learn “X” it’ll motivate me to actually learn it.
   
   >What makes a good teacher in your opinion?
   
   Someone who can break down complex topics/subjects in a manner everyone can understand while keeping everybody entertained/on task.
   
   >Should I look to teach in richer schools or poorer?
   
   Not sure. I had a lot of teacher friends when I lived in NC and teaching in poorer schools always burnt them out. The kids didn’t care, the parents didn’t care, the administrators didn’t care so they’d stay long enough to have enough experience and move to another state.
   
   I grew up in a wealthy public school system and always remember the kids caring and because of that I thought we had amazing teachers.
   
   I’m sure there’s a correlation.
   
   >Any other suggestion are, of course, welcome.
   
   My HS Calculus teacher is one of the few teachers I remember by name. It was more the educational environment that he created then the material he taught that made him memorable.
   
   Smarter Faster Better: The Transformative Power of Real Productivity is a good book I recently read in building organizational norms that might interest you.

Really, the first thing an economist will tell you is that their policies aren't adopted in full spirit by the politicians.

Most of them will tell you that free trade with open borders will lead to improved overall economic growth. That is a broad agreement. They are right, but they also urge politicians that these economic policies must also be adopted with other policies such as retraining programs and/or safety nets, which the politicians often fail to enact for those who got left behind by these policies.

In the following post someone showed a poll where economists had nearly unanimous agreement on the benefits of free trade, but you can see how many agree with the benefits of free trade while remaining skeptical that politics will take care of the people the way that economists warned they should be cared for.

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4psmof/sanders_disappointed_and_dismayed_about_platforms/d4ntwsl

There is a book you might enjoy reading by the economist Galbraith, even if the title is provocative:

The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too

> The cult of the free market has dominated economic policy-talk since the Reagan revolution of nearly thirty years ago. Tax cuts and small government, monetarism, balanced budgets, deregulation, and free trade are the core elements of this dogma, a dogma so successful that even many liberals accept it. But a funny thing happened on the bridge to the twenty-first century. While liberals continue to bow before the free-market altar, conservatives in the style of George W. Bush have abandoned it altogether. That is why principled conservatives -- the Reagan true believers -- long ago abandoned Bush.

It is a complex problem, what you are really discussing is how the entire education system is designed and the incentives in that system.

Fundamentally Trump is running on what kind of country you want America to be and in particular its societal make-up.

As a successful businessman the current situation is very favourable to you and I don't see why you would vote to change it. You can get access to good people at competitive rates (the best in China and India ~2 billion population). Taxes in the US can be managed quite well as a high net worth individual.

However many people in the US are not in your position and do not like the direction the country is heading in. They don't agree with large scale immigration and being undercut by immigrant labour. They feel the country is losing its identity.

In relation to your issues:
Hillary Clinton will result in more of the same policies. Trump is opposed to common core but you are right he has not given a detailed policy position on education. Trump is a candidate that will 'shake up the system' or at least try to. I have no doubt that the US workforce can be improved and better educated but this is not something that the president can change in four years. This requires 20 years planning with good policies.

Trump is a man who appreciates and rewards excellence and is more likely to implement policies that allow the excellent to succeed and not be held back. Who is more likely to agree with the following book?

http://www.amazon.com/Real-Education-Bringing-Americas-Schools/dp/0307405397/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1463385582&sr=1-1

Well tbh, I am probably classifying personality disorders that are prone to SJWism as SJWs, along with stereotypical SJW traits. But now that religion is gone, SJWism is highly attractive to collective minded people.

For females I'd say: Dyed hair, tattoos - things which detract from their natural femininity. Now I must be clear that there's absolutely nothing wrong with this, it's just that it's the first flag that goes up. When I see this, I'm wondering if she's a punk rocker or a SJW. SJW's are the ultimate bandwagoners. They come in, camouflage themselves in all the superfluous aspects of their new interest, ignore the true meaning behind it, denounce everyone in the movement as morally corrupt, then proceed to destroy everything that made it good. Basically, they are normies in disguise but it doesn't take long to figure them out. It's just that when I see quietly confident women, who aren't afraid of displaying their femininity, they rarely are SJWs. And this is not just because I don't like the punk look, far from it. I have a thing for punk/goth chicks, it's my absolute favourite. However, it's been co-opted by people incapable of having fun and so want to spoil it for everyone else. So I have to be careful.

As for their personality traits, it's very easy. Basically, if they're overly concerned with looking ethical, especially regarding shit that 90% people do without grandstanding, that is a red flag. An even bigger red flag is when they're more concerned about exposing others and inethical. You see the common thread here, it's all superficialness behind them, their interests, their look, their act. A lack of sense of humour and inability to see when someone is joking or not, is an extremely good indicator.

They tend to get together, create drama, form hierarchies that wouldn't naturally arise. This is why they're so politically adept. They yearn for the power they feel they don't have, so have a tendency to be good at conspiring over long periods to attain it, in their jobs, social group and this manifests in the political order.

This is where we get onto socialism. Now most people are socialist to some extent, thanks to the brainwashing of our society from media institutions. Socialism is the ultimate form of collectivism. Just like I said above, it's all superficial, they grandstand about giving aid, but don't understand the dependency which it is creating. Now, I'm all for giving aid in an emergency situation - an earthquake for example, but when you're trying to take away their natural ability to create their society on their own, you are really fucking them up. A book that really opened my eyes to this was "Eco-imperialism."^[1] This book details that though the low level SJWs maybe well meaning, the higher levels are the most racist and disgusting people you can imagine. This book focussed on the third world, but the same is true in modern society with the welfare state.

Male SJWs aren't nearly as dangerous in my experience. At least not to me. They come across like my grandma, they can't say hardly anything without thinking about potential problematic statements, so they play safe which is why they come across as extremely old fashioned. They're not nearly as image conscious as female SJWs and therefore are more difficult to spot. Usually though, they're quite cool people when you get to know them a little more and show them it's safe to express themselves a little bit. They just seem to be bad with women and think that by sucking up to the most insecure and low level ones that they might get laid. However, one time, a guy went running to some girl after he baited me into making a sexist remark over - he was basically taunting me about having interest for a girl (which was obviously his interest), I didn't want to say my true thoughts on her as they weren't that pleasant, but he took this as weakness so finally I caved and gave him my honest opinion, to which I literally saw him run off and tell her. This is a guy in his late 20's.

Anyway, hopefully this doesn't describe you. But it's not like anyones perfect, we can all work on ourselves. This is what growing up is all about. Feminism is basically telling you that you don't need to go through these natural stages.

edit-holy shit, did I just write all that?

> Can you give me a source of someone who disproved him and summarize their findings?

Yeah. Just so we're clear, we're talking about Herrnstein & Murray's 1994 book, The Bell Curve. As I'm sure you already know, this book, and its co-author Charles Murray, are among Stefan Molyneux's favorite sources of information about inherited racial differences in IQ.

If you've only heard of The Bell Curve from right-wing pundits, then you may not know that the book generated a brief but intense debate when it was first published. The debate was intense because the authors' claims were controversial. And the debate was brief because everyone quickly realized that the book was trash. The authors probably already knew this, because they declined to publish any of their findings in peer-reviewed journals. In fact, they declined to permit any kind of review prior to the book's publication. In the world of science, this is extraordinarily shady behavior.

As far as I know, The Bell Curve hasn't been in press for at least ten years. Which is a good indication that no one (on the left or the right) cared at all about what Herrnstein and Murray had to say. And that was the state of affairs until a few years ago, when the book's sections on racial differences in IQ seemed to capture the imagination of Stefan Molyneux.

Anyways, for those engaged in the practice of statistics and/or social science, The Bell Curve is infamous as a case study in bad science. The key issues are as follows:

• General intelligence. Herrstein and Murray's conclusions are based on Spearman's notion of "general intelligence" or g, which dates back to 1904. The science has always been dodgy, and the psychometric validity of g was questioned long before The Bell Curve. Psychologists were already moving toward multi-dimensional models of intelligence by the time the book was written. The best critique of g is probably still Stephen Jay Gould's Mismeasure of Man. The revised edition from 1996 has a couple chapters that directly disprove claims about g made by Herrstein and Murray.
  
  
• Statistical and psychometric methods. Complex data analysis always involves subjective decisions. It's the responsibility of the analyst to provide solid rationale for these decisions. Or in the absence of such rationale, to provide what's known as a "sensitivity analysis" to assess the impact of these decisions. Herrstein and Murray did neither of these. Instead, they analyzed data with arbitrary weighting schemes and with arbitrarily chosen subscores from an aptitude test called the AFQT. And they provided inadequate justification for their choice of weights and subscores. Perhaps unsurprisingly, their findings disappeared when different weights and subscores were used in the same analysis. (That work is documented in this book and in this paper.) These days, we'd call this "p-hacking." And it is a serious breach of scientific ethics.
  
  
• Intellectual laziness. No one disagrees that there are racial differences in IQ. That's obvious from the data. The key issue is whether these differences are due to genetic inheritance, or whether they are due to factors like income, education, and environment. In a rare moment of intellectual honesty, Herrnstein and Murray say: It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not justify an estimate. Which is a nice way of saying "please believe us even though we don't know what we're talking about." That's an acceptable thing to say in some contexts, but not when you're arguing in favor of IQ-based public policy. This quote is taken directly from the book, so I'm not going to provide a link.
  
  During the mid-to-late nineties, a lot of smart people wasted a lot of time disproving nonsense in the The Bell Curve. If you're curious about this stuff, I suppose you could start with this book from 1995.
  If you'd like to see a more recent genomics-based disproof of some of Herrstein and Murray's claims, here is a paper from three years ago. The upshot is that there is way more science opposed to the book than in favor of it. And this would be obvious to any "intellectual" who took a moment to learn about his or her sources. Of course I'm referring specifically to Stefan Molyneux, who has no reservations about accepting The Bell Curve at face value, despite the fact that it is full of outdated science, bad statistics, and sheer fantasy.
  
  Now do you understand why I question anyone who takes The Bell Curve seriously?

>A few ways, first it showed me that white people weren't the only ones to displace Native Americans. Not only did the Spanish and Mexicans do it, but the Native Americans displaced people who were here before they crossed the land bridge. I learned a healthy respect for the values and traditions of the Native Americans who lived here, and found out that the beautiful California is very different from the one that existed long ago. From the vegetation to the population, it has changed.

A couple of questions: Do you not consider the Spanish to be white people? They were European invaders, after all, and arguably committed worse atrocities on the people they colonized than any other empire in recent history save, arguably, Belgium. Check out the writings of Bartolome de las Casas for more information.

How are you defining "Mexicans" here? Just as a nationality? If so, isn't the country made up of an extremely diverse mixture of people of Spanish, indigenous, and African descent? Some of them would certainly qualify as "white people," at least from an American perspective. I'm not super familiar with Mexican history, but how did the government displace Native Americans specifically?

>I agree, history should be learned and respected so we learn from it. But I fail to see what posthumously condemning actions that were, at the time, will do. Appreciate what they did right, learn from what they did wrong.

I don't think it's possible to learn from history without posthumously condemning heinous actions, even if they were accepted at the time as relatively normal. How else do you draw a distinction between the past and present and say, "Never again"? I might agree with you if the world was enjoying an era of peace and prosperity and humanity had collectively shed its history of violence, but unfortunately that is not the case. You can clearly see the mistakes of the past repeated over and over again from the human rights abuses of dictatorships to the expansionist propaganda of terrorist organizations to the petty mail bombs sent to political dissidents. Until those mistakes are no longer repeated, I think we owe it to ourselves as a species to keep reminding everyone around us of how we got here, especially if our ancestors did it the wrong way. You can celebrate achievements and condemn mistakes in the same breath.

>But I love that our ancestors began what has become this great country.

How do you feel about manifest destiny? I'm sure you'll disagree with this, and I know nothing can change the past, but there's no doubt in my mind that the world would be a better place if colonists had never invaded the Western Hemisphere. Or if that was inevitable, would you disagree that we could have treated indigenous populations with a modicum of human decency? Imagine if instead of lying and murdering and breaking treaties, Jefferson made the Louisiana purchase and then just gave the land to the Native Americans. The entire West would be left unscathed and millions of lives would be saved. Would the United States really be worse off today with a neighboring country run by mutually respected indigenous people and a slightly smaller empire?

>I would love that! Thank you very much! I find that utilizing different perspectives tends to give an accurate middle picture.

That's great to hear! The best way I can introduce you to historiography is the same way most college professors do it. It's kind of a big commitment, so I totally understand if you don't have the time or inclination to pursue it, but I'd love to hear your thoughts if you do.

Okay, so the basic outline is this: An author named Natalie Davis wrote a nonfiction book about the legendary court case of Martin Guerre, a 16th century Frenchman who was allegedly impersonated by a man who lived in his place for years before his wife noticed the switcheroo. Davis drew on a number of primary sources and turned the legend into an engaging, fact-based narrative. Enter Robert Finlay, a rival historian. He wasn't happy with the liberties Davis took with the story or her practice of history; the "nonfiction" book she wrote might as well have been fiction, according to Finlay. Davis and Finlay each took turns publishing papers that absolutely ripped each other's reputations apart. Who was right? What is the "correct" way to interpret history? That's the million dollar question of historiography.

So if you want to basically experience a freshman historiography class, start by reading Davis' book The Return of Martin Guerre. It's quite short.

Then, go ahead and read Finlay's rebuttal of the book. Here's a pdf.

Finally, read Davis' rebuttal of Finlay's rebuttal. Here's a pdf of that.

Then try to wrap your mind around the fact that literally every single detail we take for granted as historical "fact" has gone through a similar process of rebuttals upon rebuttals until one of them sticks. Usually it's the wrong one, at least in the case of popular history that most Americans think they know.

I was a Sanders supporter. Sanders also supported closed borders. I was not a fan of Jeb. People make "low energy Jeb" jokes, but he brings back memories of Al Gore during the 2000 election. If Gore had been as excited about running for president as he was during An Inconvenient Truth, he would have won easily. I saw that movie, and said, "Who the hell is this guy, and where was he during the election."

Hillary was a terrible choice, and the Democrats knew it. Forget about Benghazi (which is mostly a BS issue, anyway). Forget about the emails (actions which would not have landed her in jail, but would have meant her immediate firing as Secretary). Forget the DNC collusion with her over Sanders. Those are all outside noise. When she had the time to talk, to make noise from the inside, the noise lacked substance. Most importantly, it lacked "Hillary" substance. I don't want to know why the other person is a bad choice. I want to know why you're a good choice. She never really figured that one out, and gave Trump extra help. In the polls, she and Trump were about even in favorability, but she had higher unfavorable ratings by around 3%.

It's the same thing that happened during the Republican debate that Trump didn't attend (but held a rally for wounded veterans). The first thing the other candidates (and I'm pretty sure it was Jeb) talked about was Trump. In a night where he wasn't even present, he owned their minds, and on a night where they could have acted like he didn't exist, they made him a star.

If you listen to how anyone sold her, she was either sold as a continuation of Obama, or "not Trump." Hillary basically followed whatever popular online movements were pushing. I'm not even talking important ones. I mean, even Trump said that transgender individuals should use whatever bathroom they want.

With Trump, at least his positions have been consistent for the past 30+ years. He's hated our trade agreements.

Realistically, he's not a Republican. I don't know if there's a definition for a political pragmatist. He has basically changed parties multiple times to leverage himself into the best political position counter to whatever the administration was at the time, all while being consistent on what and how he believes the government should be involved in stuff. He hated Reagan. He hated Carter.

His battle plan seems haphazard unless you read Art of the Deal. If you do, he is using the same media techniques that he used to fix the Wollman Rink. He will hire people who were once his enemy if they do a good job. The lawyer that NY used to sue him (in a case that Trump won)? He thought that guy was excellent and hired him. Yes, Trump churns staff, but he always has, and he will rearrange teams as situations change.

His economic policies seem weird unless you realize that he follows the American School of Economics. something that was great for us, and then abandoned while other countries used it against us, and grew strong economies. 6 of the last 7 presidents attempted tariff measures (Carter is the outlier, and also the one that gave China favored Nation status).

Let's use this when we look at repairing infrastructure and building. We need steel and we know that. Chine sells cheaper (both cost and grade) steel. If we use tariffs to force the price up, US steel becomes competitive and is better because of quality. So that money is spent here, which bolsters our economy vs China's. It goes to our workers, and they spend it here, which helps prevent a race to the bottom economic situation that happens with spending money overseas.

>taking away people's guns without due process

Huh? You think President Trump is anti-2a? Serious?? He made one statement during a consultation meeting because he was trying to get Congress off its ass... 99.9% of the other statements he has made have been in support of 2a, big time. You will find very few if any real Trump supporters that believe he is a threat to 2a.

>or threatening a murderous dictator who just got a nuclear weapon

Yes, the legitimate threat of military force was established through his words, his staff selection, his deployment of military assets. A very different approach to prior administrations that tried to buy and talk their way into peace (which clearly did not work). The results (so far, granted) speak for themselves.

As for source... He wrote a book. You're welcome to read the Art of the Deal... Here's a review

https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Art-Deal-Donald-J-ebook/dp/B000SEGE6M/ref=la_B001H6O8M2_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1525631627&sr=1-1

>If you want to know why Donald Trump does things it's probably addressed in this book. Without getting too political he's a negotiator and to get what you want when you negotiate you need to ask for a lot more than what you really want because you are going to lose a lot during negotiation. If you start off asking for what you want you'll get almost nothing. It also costs nothing to say something, it only costs to do things (in general.) Even if saying something is only successful one in fifty times, it's still a win for essentially nothing and that adds up.

:) Well if Comey wants congress to give up he could of course demand they all wear one of these XD

https://www.amazon.com/Donald-Trump-Signature-Collection-Necktie/dp/B0088EF2N0

We're just talking past each other at this point. Best if you read a good book: Stand Down: How Social Justice Warriors Are Sabotaging America's Military Hardcover https://www.amazon.com/Stand-Down-Warriors-Destroying-Americas/dp/1621579182

So, you don't understand why we enacted the tariffs? There's actually a whole book on it. You can find it here. https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Art-Deal-Donald-J/dp/0399594493/

Tariffs are a means, not an ends. The ends (goal) is zero tariffs.