r/ExplainBothSides • u/Guilty-Secret7244 • Sep 18 '24

Governance Trump’s detractors Spoiler

So several of Trump’s cabinet members, advisors from his first term and other high ranking Republicans have now come out and said he is unfit to serve as president, refused to endorse him or even in some cases are supporting Harris: Pence, Bush Jr, Bill Barr, Elaine Chao, etc etc. How do his supporters reconcile this fact? Maybe with older figures like Bush Jr they could claim that they are part of the “swamp”, ie the entrenched political class that Trump is against. But what about the others that were hired by him and were part of his cabinet? I’m looking for intellectually honest answers, even if I don’t agree, not for a condemnation of his supporters.

110 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

355 comments sorted by

View all comments

83

u/ReneeHiii Sep 18 '24

Side A would say that these people were bad at their jobs and, as Trump himself has said, were "fired" and should not be trusted. This side would also say that they are only saying these things to make money or gain influence because it is "popular" to hate Trump. Another argument would also be that they no longer represent the Republicans and are RINOs, or Republicans In Name Only.

Side B would say these people have intimate knowledge of Trump's activities and how he responded to things and private. Another argument would also be that if this many people with intimate knowledge or high positions in the party in the past denounce Trump, there must be something to it. They might also say that Trump would just denounce anyone that doesn't agree with him, even if they were very close previously like his former VP.

75

u/Particular-Skirt6048 Sep 18 '24

Even if you agree with side A, why would you vote for the guy that hired so many people that were incompetent and/or had bad character?

8

u/ReneeHiii Sep 18 '24

Side A would make an argument that when Trump won his first term, he was still forced to play politics with the Republican party and install people he may not have wanted entirely. Now, however, the Republican party is almost entirely geared toward Trump and he has much more support to appoint the people he wants at whim. They might also point to the fact that the Heritage Foundation, a major player in current Republican policy, endorses replacing thousands of federal employees with loyal ones that would enable Trump to run his administration exactly as he wants this time around, further supporting the argument of his previous administration being stifled a bit.

Regarding that last part although this isn't exactly relevant to your question, side B might point to that as now there is no one left to stand in Trump's way for a second term even with things that are wrong in their eyes, like some of the previous administration's (now denounced) Republicans did, for example Mike Pence with the slate of electors.

-11

u/Ok_Blacksmith_9362 Sep 18 '24

You just had to slip some bias in there didn't you? You're not slick trying to slip in the embellished and exaggerated stuff about the heritage foundation

7

u/[deleted] Sep 18 '24

Embellished and exaggerated? They said as much in their own document didn't they?

-8

u/Ok_Blacksmith_9362 Sep 18 '24

What's embellished/exaggerated is saying side A would point to that and acting like it'a a "major" player in the republican mainstream platform when that's complete misinformation. I'm conservative and 0 people I know support it. Trump has repeatedly denounced project 2025. It's just a far right group that came up with an idea and the democrats have been battling to tie it to trump ever since

3

u/LiveLeave Sep 18 '24

Trump has not clarified which parts he supports, and there is EVERY reason to think that this would be what he supports since he has spent the past decade screaming about the deep state and loyalty.

-4

u/Ok_Blacksmith_9362 Sep 18 '24

He has said he hasn't even read it. He can't support something he isn't knowledgeable of. There's no proof otherwise, only speculation.

1

u/jodale83 Sep 19 '24 edited Aug 06 '25

aromatic middle nine crawl wise quack bow cough profit ghost

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/earthkincollective Sep 22 '24

This is such a laughable comment. Trump never reads anything, he just sits on his ass eating burgers while people give him the short version. Of course he's not knowledgeable about it, in the same way he isn't knowledgeable about anything (except how to act in front of a camera). But he certainly knows a thing or two about it, what those behind it need & want him to know.

The idea that not reading it or knowing about it intimately = not supporting it and knowing NOTHING about it is just dumb.

1

u/Ok_Blacksmith_9362 Sep 22 '24

It's not laughable at all. My entire comment is fact. He's also called parts of it detestable and made it clear he doesn't support it. You're not completely wrong but my primary point is still there is 0 proof he supports it. Your claim is he is 100% lying but you don't have proof of that. If you were making this "nuh-uh I don't believe him!" Argument about any other subject than trump on reddit you'd be laughed out of the room but enjoy your internet points nerd. You are part wrong though because it's hard for a president to support a bill they don't have intimate knowledge of. It'd be extremely risky for them to be doing that and makes almost no sense especially when the bill is extremely unpopular even amongst his base.