69M Uninformed Horrible People....and Counting!

[ToraToraTora]

In another thread an ABer describes Trump voters as:

"....... uninformed to the point of absurdity or they are a horrible person. "

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cj3ergr8209t

When there are that many could the observer be at fault in his assessment?

[New Judge]

"...the republicans under trump are not just another political party like tories/labour. they are an extremely aggressive political-religious movement with openly destructive intentions."

Accepting, just for the sake of this argument, that is true, do you not believe that if the majority of an electorate wants to be governed by "an extremely aggressive political-religious movement with openly destructive intentions" that they should be entitled to it? 

You don’t seem to understand the point being made here: you are not the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable. You are perfectly entitled to your views and if that’s your view of a Trump administration that’s fair enough. But you are not entitled to label people who support him with some of the unpleasant descriptions you have provided.

It was exactly the same in this country with the EU referendum. All those who voted to leave were (and still are) described variously as racists, xenophobic, “Little Englanders” or – worst of all – simply too thick to be trusted with such a decision. I am none of those and I would say my knowledge of the EU and its effects on the UK are probably greater than average. But I was (and still am) adorned with one or more of those labels at various times. And all because I hold a different opinion to others. 

“…disagree all you like it is if no interest to me.”

If the opinion of others is of no interest to you, why do you make your opinion so well known? When a person votes – be it in a referendum or an election – the voter is casting his vote on the basis of his opinion. He's not right or wrong and he’s not (necessarily) nasty or stupid. But by your reasoning, the 69m who have voted for Mr Trump are all one or the other.

[Untitled]

" You are perfectly entitled to your views and if that’s your view of a Trump administration that’s fair enough. But you are not entitled to label people who support him with some of the unpleasant descriptions you have provided."

yes i am

[Khandro]

Trump ; 'Mass deportations of illegals and drilling to start on first day in office.'

Why would an American want otherwise ?

 

[Untitled]

"do you not believe that if the majority of an electorate wants to be governed by "an extremely aggressive political-religious movement with openly destructive intentions" that they should be entitled to it? "

i have not asserted have no right to vote for such a group. that would be absurd - they can and they have. i have put forward the argument that someone who chooses to do so is either ignorant or a bad person. i find that argument highly defensible... in fact i think it is self evident. 
 

i am amazed by the number of people who not only want to do something horrible but seem to be desperate that they be liked and admired for doing it. nobody is entitled to praise or admiration... or for that matter to respect if their actions do not warrant it. 

[tomus42]

The American people have spoken. Nothing to be done now but wait and see what unfolds.

All I'd say is if you've ever had a hankering to visit any of the Baltic states, I'd book those tickets sharpish. That's where Putin will be heading after he's finished off Ukraine.

[New Judge]

"yes i am"

Perhaps "entitlement" is the wrong term.

Certainly you can (I wouldn't seek to stifle anybody's opinions). However, I look forward to you being able to justify your statement that 60m people (well actually now 71m and still counting) are all "religious loons, neonazis and white supremacists". 

Just for starters, I would find it hard to believe that among that 71m, there were not a few black people and I doubt many of them are "white supremacists".