A lot of people support him, not me personally, because while these things are hard for some to process, he often says things as they are, albeitTrump is doing exactly what America doesn't need right now. In a time where international conflict is on the rise, he is simply adding to it. We need to be uniting - not being divided, which is exactly what he's doing. His tactics involve slander, and inducing fear. He supports discrimination, because it can further his personal agenda.
often exaggerated (but thats politics for you)
and he is the one who is able to provide change, which is what people are wanting.
Love is of course a good thing and acceptence and tolerance as well. You find that however a lot of people are frustrated with the way thatWe should be preaching love, and acceptance, or at least tolerance towards one another, but all he does is preach hate, and violence.
seemingly innocent message is used to promote/normalise radical gender ideaologies and left-wing policies/progressivism.
We'll have to wait and see if "all he preaches" is hate and tolerance; but judging solely by his election campaign and how the media has portrayed him,
I'd have to agree with somewhat.
I don't think it is simply something that Trump solely stands for, you have the same problem here in Australia.This thread right now, is exactly the perfect example for everything he stands for - why are people arguing, attacking each other? There was a disagreement in opinion, but rather than moving on or settling it quietly, it's turned into a heated fight. For what purpose?
Yep, and that is something that goes both ways. Often those on the left and the right can be as bad as each other. Labels are thrown aroundWhat reason is there for all this negativity? We shouldn't resort to throwing insults and hurtful comments because we disagree on something.
too quickly, without actually trying to understand and love the person who disagrees, even if they are completely wrong in your mind.
Depends what you mean by tolerance. Unfortunately now a days tolerance has meant "do this or else". Let me give an example of inconsistency, soTo quote Martin Luther King Jr., "Violence brings only temporary victories; violence, by creating many more social problems than it solves, never brings permanent peace."
Only peace can bring about more peace, only acceptance and tolerance can end discrimination. Don't let this vicious cycle of violence go on, and don't just wait for it to end by itself. We are the ones who can end it. We must preach kindness. We must preach acceptance. We must preach peace.
people in USA, major companies and that, are able to consciously object to supporting Trump. or providing their services on a conscious ground to Trump supporters; and yet when a religious person who owns/operates a business, usually a Christian but not always; consciously objects to providing their services for a same-sex wedding ceremony, we complain and prosecute them; whose opinion is often held without violence as well.
So I think we definitely need "tolerance" and "acceptance" but the way that for the past 5 years these words have been used to push a controversial agenda on sexuality and especially on gender onto the people that is religiously, culturally diverse is not acceptable either.
I think it disgraceful and even sometimes counterproductive, maybe even hypocritical, for some of the young people in the US to be involved in the reckless behaviour seen reported in the news after the election, simply because Trump won.
I wouldn't vote for either in that election. Not even for Hillary.
Discrimination is a good thing to end, but often it is confused with distinction. For example, it is not discrimination in the wrong/evil (to be eliminated) way, to say that women should play in women's events and men should play in men's events. Or to say that men and women should use separate bathrooms.
It is actually loving especially towards the women, to separate those who are biologically women for a separate bathroom so that they can feel comfortable and safe.
Or take marriage, marriage definition makes not explicit discrimination against gays marrying but only discirminates in that is specificies the gender of the people that should marry. It is only when we assume that for people to marry they have to be sexually attracted, does orientation play a part. And yes it does indirectly discriminate against same-sex marriages which is a better term than gay marriage. And the main reason is conventionally, and in common sense, that to produce offspring, a man and a woman is required; and that has historically been the main reason behind marriage, not to mention the
different roles, a mother and a father play in a child's life is very important. But of course there is a matter of disagreement on this issue, which is fair enough, but people on both sides are just terrible on this issue.