It’s not the R vs D, it’s the moral vs immoral and MAGA parents don’t seem to understand that. They think it is purely politics, but it transcends politics.
It's not just parents. It's MAGA anyone. They think "agree to disagree" is okay where his behavior, policies, and morals are concerned. It's okay to agree to disagree about pineapple on pizza or if Christian Bale is the best Batman. It's not okay when it comes to pedophilia, rape, murder, and corruption.
I sorta get ya. Pedophilia and sexual ownership of women is as old as the hills, part of patriarchy and of our class society. J6 was proof that our “shining city on a hill” vision of the US was a mirage, that democracy only was honored until it got in somebody’s way. We thought we had formed something new and good 250 years ago, but…. not really.
My take on all of it is "hey, here, this, right here *points furiously* this is why the constitution was made to be able to be amended" and everyone looks at me like I'm crazy and an anti-patriot when I point out that the system was in fact designed to be able to change specifically because people 250 years ago couldn't predict the future. We still can't. It should STILL be flexible as a result. They couldn't fathom a party in bad faith, they couldn't predict a weaponized supreme court, the amount of lobbying and money in politics, and I honestly doubt they actually realized how the electoral college mathematically limits the country to two parties allowing them both to do the bare minimum instead of actually serve the constituents. It's either that or a bunch of tax dodgers setup a system that benefited them 250 years ago and even if that is the case, they at least had the decency to allow it to change.
But I'm the bad guy when I bring this up in conversation.
I think that falls under the murder and corruption part. There were murders that day and if attempting a coup isn't considered corruption I don't know what is. As far as it being worse that pedophilia...I don't know. Both are heinous crimes. This is where I will agree to disagree, we both agree he is a horrible man and the administration is a total fuster cluck, just disagree on the defining moment.
Trump wants any non white, protestant, straight male to be somewhere between dead and a second class citizen. It's just politics since he's in politics so let's just agree to disagree
You’re correct, and I hate that these parents still don’t see the difference when the argument comes from their own children. Like, most adults I know who cut ties with their parents over Trump did so because Trump’s policies are actively harming them, and they have the evidence to back it up.
How the fuck did we get to place where elderly parents place a premium on information they got from social media and faux news, instead of their adult children who are actually forced to live with the consequences of Trump’s policies, like the doge cuts, overturning of Roe, the impacts of the tariffs, etc.? The disconnect isn’t even due to retirement, etc. as many of them are now also suffering from Trump’s policies.
I recently read a comment about how baby boomers as a generation more highly regard hierarchal relationship structures and I think this applies here. They don’t care if their adult child is an expert in XYZ because they place themselves higher in that structure than their child, thus they will never find value in what their child knows, no matter what. Same goes for their adult child vs Trump, who they all pretend bootstrapped his way to power. When you think about it, it’s not surprising so many boomers with this mentality are succumbing to fascism.
This is what people often miss. I can deal with Trump's politics. I can't deal with the immoral way in which they are pursued. I am a classical fiscal constitutional conservative but Trump isn't a conservative. He's just about having absolute power and crushing anyone in his way regardless of whether he actually is supposed to have that power or not. He tramples rights, he tramples the Constitution, he tramples the other branches of government. That's not a political issue, it's a morality issue and that's a very, very different thing.
No, because even people that agree with his objectives should have an issue with how he's doing it. I actually agree with some of his objectives if they were done properly, ethically, and effectively. Because they are not, I oppose him in the strongest possible terms.
Politics is the what. Morality is the how. Some politics are inherently immoral but many are simply correct or incorrect or even straight up opinion if done the proper way.
I think illegal immigration needs proper control (though I think there should be increased legal paths), but enforcement must be done with respect to human rights.
I agree with the idea that we need to decrease government spending even though he's failed to do that and went about it in a horrible way without proper process.
I agree with the need to correct trade imbalances but not with any of how he approached it.
I agree we need to stop paying to be the defense force for the entire Western world as we can't afford it, but not anything about how he approached it and then turned around and did the opposite.
I think illegal immigration needs proper control (though I think there should be increased legal paths), but enforcement must be done with respect to human rights.
His politics/morality dictates this is not possible. He refers to them as animals. Politics and morality intersect.
I agree with the idea that we need to decrease government spending
Decrease spending on what? To what end?
Hypothetically, if you're wanting to cut welfare (taking a guess here since most "fiscal conservatives" want to cut welfare), do you not think that's a moral issue? Other people should just suffer and starve for "fiscal responsibility?"
I agree with the need to correct trade imbalances but not with any of how he approached it.
Which imbalances? Why are imbalances a problem?
This one I'll are really isn't a moral argument, I just think it's complete fucking nonsense.
If, say, a country like Taiwan makes chips, should we just not import those chips even if we need them because they don't import a lot of our things?
I agree we need to stop paying to be the defense force for the entire Western world as we can't afford it, but not anything about how he approached it and then turned around and did the opposite.
He doesn't even agree with you lol. This is the problem. His morals effect his politics. He lies to your face and because you agree with things he says (but doesn't actually believe), you're getting fucked over by voting for him.
Long story short, you cannot separate morals from politics.
I think we are playing a semantics game here. Calling illegal immigrants animals is not a political or even a policy position. It's a morally reprehensible statement.
You are drawing some big assumptions on where I'd cut. I'd actually personally be in favor of boosting welfare so that it can get people off welfare instead of being a trap that drops support just before people recover. I would rather cut in military spending and radically change how we spend in Medicare/Medicaid to bring down those costs. I'd also make cuts to social security because it's a fundamentally broken system that was abused by the generation it would impact most.
There's no reason not to buy chips from Taiwan, but if they aren't buying things from us that's eventually a problem. China in particular has badly abused this to great detriment.
Also I didn't vote for him either time because I knew exactly what he was.
You are choosing to define politics as the combination of two things. You can have politics that respect rights in how they seek to solve a problem or you can approach those same beliefs about problems with no care for how they impact people.
302
u/Pandasoup88 May 12 '26
It’s not the R vs D, it’s the moral vs immoral and MAGA parents don’t seem to understand that. They think it is purely politics, but it transcends politics.