This is a platform for User Generated Content. G/O Media assumes no liability for content posted by Kinja users to this platform.

Insight into a republicans mind.

Illustration for article titled Insight into a republicans mind.

Over the weekend I played games with some guys I haven’t seen in about 2 years (online). I was shocked to learn both of them were Trump supporters. One is an American the other a fellow Canadian.


I tried to have an open discussion to learn perhaps why they do support him. I came with an open mind as one of them at least is fairly smart. It was odd to hear the multiple issues like education, health care etc. we all agreed on, but how they got there was very different.

On Internet neutrality: We both wanted unrestricted access to the entire internet. (They believed the UN controls the internet. I tried to explain backbones and hubs and that the internet is every pc online and that each country can determine what traffic comes in on their backbone. So the US’ net neutrality laws won’t affect Canada. they did not agree with this). More importantly both republicans and liberals pointed to the other party for distorting the issue in the name and saying it wasn’t what people thought it was. We agreed on that, but not whom was distorting. After coming to the agreement we both wanted cheap access to unfettered internet we clarified our positions. They were against net neutrality I was for it. I explained that the government would come in and regulate it (still allowing for other companies to compete), but ensure that standards are being used (ie: security, coding languages etc.). This means that the companies would have to remain neutral in what they decided to allow on their network. Currently each provider could choose what to allow and what you see. They are NOT neutral. Further akin to a food inspector. Any company can open a restaurant but they need to be clean and maintained properly. Regulated by the government. They disagreed with me at this point advising that “net neutrality is being confused as liberal bias”, and explained that being for net neutrality means you want to restrict what you see. No explanation, just that’s what it means.


On Health Care: They advised they wanted a free-market concept where companies would compete and bring down the cost of health care. The one American advised me that he is penalized $3,000 a year by Obamacare if he doesn’t have enough money for health care. I tried to get details out of him as it didn’t make sense and if you are penalized for something that should simply be part of taxes, this is not right. He was vehement this is what it was and it offered insight for me as to why he might have voted Trump.

On Guns: Both of them were for gun regulation and stricter background checks for mental health issues etc. I agreed with them on this. What they disagreed on was that every American should just have one for safety reasons because of the bad guys that are obviously going to have them. I tried to explain to them that the majority of guns in bad guys’ hands are stolen from legitimate owners that maybe didn’t lock it up in a safe enough place. And if the person didn’t have the gun to steal, it wouldn’t be in the bad guys hands. They did not agree with me. I tried to have them agree on a fact that guns were made in factories legitimately, and were then stolen from legitimate sources. They did not agree on that. they advised that most of the illegal guns are made at home. Yes made at home with “some simple tools”. This blew my mind. I get jerry-rigging a barrel and shooting a projectile, but not something that fits standard ammo. I don’t know guns so I conceded to them on this issue.


On climate change: They honestly don’t believe it’s happening and that humans have little to no effect on the environment, citing that one volcano eruption is the entire worlds emissions. They say China invented it specifically to harm America. They would not listen to how facts are obtained. That they are confirmed by scientists all over the world and while, yes there is speculation about the degree of global warming caused by humans, we should be able to agree that we want to sustain life on this planet. We could not agree because there is no threat in their eyes other than industry jobs for oil/coal.

And the big one, other races/religions/immigration: Specifically Muslims. I said of course you shouldn’t judge someone by their religious beliefs and that nuts exist in every religion. they disagreed, they said “fact, not a single murder has been performed by a christian”. i laughed in his face as i could not hold that back. i didn’t google an example but this morning in Quebec someone shot up a mosque , I’m guessing was christian. they went on to explain “what do you think will happen when they out number us. they believe gays should be killed and rape women. look at Sweden and what happened to them. “ i asked where he got his news from (infowars - watch out folks, this is serious red pill shit). They explained that once “we” are outnumbered they vote in their Muslim guys and then change the law by voting. I tried to explain that it doesn’t happen instantly and that is what assimilation is. I explained to them that the new arrivals cant just go murdering and raping people as we have laws in place against that in Canada and the US. I explained they aren’t the only ones immigrating either and aren’t the largest population to do so likely. By sheer numbers china has more citizens, if you wanted to fear being outnumbered then if anything wouldn’t logic dictate them instead of Muslims?


I didn’t get a chance to explain how each state has their own laws (to a degree) and people move to a state they fit best. Same with world people should be able to move to any country they wish and the UN kinda of helps facilitate that. there are countries that don’t allow their citizens to leave and if anyone should be fighting anyone about anything, it should be about those countries that don’t allow them to leave, and about that issue alone. Again however, i didn’t get to mention this last point because they kept yelling over me when I tried to reason with them. I got angry at these tactics of not allowing me have my turn to speak and how i lost my train of thought and thus the ability to reason with them

The closing argument was how trump “clearly” won all the debates and i said it was by the same childish tactics over talking-over someone else. They said he had to since Hillary was fed the question before hand. I didn’t reply but I thought to myself (maybe he got the memo and decided not to read it. like the security briefings).


So that’s the insight into the republicans minds folks. They are not bad people mostly speaking, they just have some wild ideas about how to get to whats right and are under the assumption that politicians are corrupt and Trump is disassembling it for its citizens.(They are right that a gov that fears its people is more just/honest than a people that fear its gov). We agreed that power corrupts and anyone that has that position may likely be under duress and told what to do at times. They do want to protect their future and honestly believe they need to stop Muslims because of their difference in views. It boils down to intolerance and they instigate the hate/violence via intolerance.

Share This Story

Get our newsletter