Please don't up the ante into total polarization. Regardless of how wrong your enemies are, doing this destroys substantive discussion, which is the point of this place.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13508057 and marked it off-topic.

"Trump is a bad person, and the people who voted for him are bad people"

I voted for Trump. I support many (not all) of his policies. I don't appreciate being called a bad person. Certainly you have a right to think this but I disagree.

I won't go into what I think of people who voted for Hillary because I try not be mindlessly nasty but I don't think they are all "bad people".

I think anyone who supports ethnic and religious bans and persecution is a bad person. Even if they deprioritize them in voting over other policies, thinking, well, who cares, a little bit of racism never hurt anyone, that makes them a bad person.

And Trump promised voters that, and now they're getting what they voted for. The only very thin escape route a Trump-voter has is "I thought he was lying to trick the rubes, this was totally unexpected."

In which case, the voter is just really stupid. That doesn't make them a bad person--I know lots of kind stupid people! But it does make them, you know, stupid.

And anyone who supports a man who is killing innocent people with drones, wiretaps all the world, signs things that allow kill people without any questions is a bad person. Heck, some even voted for him twice! What a bunch of fascist.

So in the end all the Americans are bad people or maybe you guys start to understand each other more to avoid these situations in the future. Calling each stupid doesn't lead you anywhere.

I guess this is the modern, "And you lynch negroes!" Russian is en vogue among the Trumpistas, I get it.

For what it's worth, I opposed endless drone strikes and endless war too. But you're engaging in an idiotic equivocation: they're simply not comparable.

I really don't know what understand what 'negroes' and Russians have anything to do with it. I'm not an American, but you made my belief that nothing is going to change soon because American people are so polarized and and certain there are two works views. You're either blue or red and that's it.

It was a famous catch phrase that the Soviets would use against Americans. The typical refrain was Americans criticize the USSR for killing political dissidents, starving Ukrainians, and keeping millions in the Gulag; and the Soviet diplomat tries to shift discussion of the issue to American segregation in the South, as a way of derailing the discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

That was more informative than your previous post :) Thanks, this is actually interesting (I was born in the Soviet Union)

There are no ethic or religious bans.... It was a ban on people coming from certain countries.

Do you support this Muslim ban? If not, as a Republican voter, you have more power than most of us here to stop it. Call your representatives.

This is not a Muslim ban. This is a temporary suspension for immigration from certain countries (many of which we are currently droning, which in itself should've been an outrage years ago.) No one called for action on Malaysia, for example.

I think that a person who supports or condones persecution based solely on ethnic and religious background is a bad person. Or a person who support a leader which does these things.

But that is my opinion.

There are even CEOs and very successful people who are bad people. Even Hitler was Man of the Year in 1938... And Henry Ford loved him.

So just be aware that you are seen as a bad person by certain members of US population. Nothing wrong there. As one guy on TV said: just try not to get into serious conversations with gays, girls, brown and black people and you will be fine...

> Even Hitler was Man of the Year in 1938

Time's man of the year is about influence, not endorsement.

A lot of people do not get that difference. It sounds like an endorsement to tell you the truth even though, as you say, it is about the most impact, good or bad.

Then you voted for an autocratic, racist, dangerous man that is implementing policies antithetical to a free and democratic society after he openly said he would do so.

I'm not interested in evaluating whether you are evil or not. I am interested in opposing everything you voted for. I don't want to change your mind. I want to keep you far away from any sort of power.

Whether or not you voted for Trump because of his racism, you voted for him DESPITE his racism.

I disagree with your charges of "racist" and "dangerous". Slander is easy to throw around but it doesn't mean it's reality.

Disagreeing is entirely your prerogative. But that doesn't change the fact that most people who take racism seriously are going to think of you as a bad person.

And why shouldn't we? The worst you could do is tear families apart, watch people die, and actively participate in killing people, and you're already doing that. So yes, you're a bad person.

> I don't appreciate being called a bad person.

> I disagree with your charges of "racist" and "dangerous".

History is a harsh judge.

People like Trump are nothing on their own, they need a large cadre of others to do their bidding for them. Note that Trump was nominated by the republican party because they figured he might help them win the election no matter what the cost to the country (maybe they told themselves and are still telling themselves that it is worth it and that he can be controlled). By voting for a person like Trump you are essentially abdicating from your position of power and handing it to them but the responsibility still rests with you.

So for every action Trump takes that hurts people you are partially responsible. And if you think that somehow what Trump is doing will benefit that United States then I really would like to know what drives that line of thinking.

> History is a harsh judge.

So are keyboard warriors on Hacker News. Did you vote for Obama? Are you partially responsible for his drone strikes?

Pro Tip: The internet is not 100% American. Maybe check your dumb and obvious bias at the door before leveling accusations.

> Did you vote for Obama?

No.

> Are you partially responsible for his drone strikes?

No.

Try again.

Why is it mindless to think that people that support an ignorant demagogue to be President are bad people?

Just by appeal to pedantry, I think it is a very logical conclusion. You may not like it, but I don't think "mindless" is the right word.

You are bad. Bad people are bad. Sorry.

Maybe not racist but ok with racism; don't hurt my fee-fees!

> this disgusting, offensive action

Why is this a "disgusting, offensive action," but droning and killing of Muslim people by Obama/Secretary of State Clinton/others not? Shouldn't actual, tragic loss of life evoke a bigger outrage than revising our border policy?

Honest question: how do you think a country where nearly half of its population are "bad people" should be governed? I can't imagine you'll actually be successful in pushing away one out of every two Americans. What do you think would be proper action to devalue the influence of these people and where in the world would you draw the line?

> Honest question: how do you think a country where nearly half of its population are "bad people" should be governed?

Historically, if such countries are made up in such a way that there is a well defined geographical split the country will break up.

Not sure where you get nearly half when less then a third of the population voted for Trump. Nearly half of the population didn't even bother to vote. Are you referring to his approval rating which is questionable with polls of 36% to 55%?

I'm also not calling a Trump voter a "bad person" just asking about the number of people in context to the discussion.

Well, it's nearly half of the voting population and I think it's fair to extrapolate that to the entire population. Even taking the approval poll numbers, that's more than one in three, so I don't really think it changes my above comment much, if at all.

unfortunately, my answer to this is hypocritical, given the trump presidency: drag the regressives kicking and screaming into a more liberal future, one step at a time, carrying their dead weight as gently and as gracefully as we can, because it's the right thing to do.

i don't care if it sounds scary: the backward people of the world are our brethren, and we can't leave them behind even though they're inconvenient and ungrateful. they resent us looking down on them, but they have earned it.

it's what we as a liberal society have done for 200+ years now. the conservatives never get tired of losing on the long term because they frequently win battles in the short term.

the march toward enlightenment would be much faster without the dead weight of the viciously tribalistic and the willfully ignorant. but they're humans too, so we're obligated to improve the lives of their grandchildren by working toward a better future today. their grandchildren will be more liberal, and so, we'll have won.

this is a paternalistic view, to be sure. but we've seen how inept the backward tribes are at managing their own futures... and how much effort they expend on trying to ruin it for everyone else. better to let more evolved minds guide the rubes.