Trump says he'll ban all immigration (2)

RE: > 171
(this continuation's parent-thread)

"Frankly, nothing about the 'culture' to which Trumpists are devoted is worth preserving. Thank goodness the immigrants and refugees keep coming! The time grows shorter until they will solve the problem of white supremacy.

"The solution to pollution is dilution."

"Trumpists"?

"The solution to pollution is dilution."

There we have it.

"White culture" = "pollution."

Thank you. That's as clear an admission of the real objective as I could ask to have from these people.

These are the people ('peace-loving' 'humanitarian' 'liberals') who show an apparently sincere shock and resentment that they and their ideology (just described above in one of the rare cases of open honesty) are not embraced affectionately by those whose culture they've designated for systematic elimination by demographic "dilution".

There's also a back-handed compliment in this: it implies that those who'd object to and vigorously resist the annihilation of their culture through whatever the means are people who aren't expected to go quietly. They and their culture must be deliberately targeted for elimination.

The tactics and the methodology of are different from the Nazi's "Final Solution" but the desires and intentions are exactly the same.

So the "Rainbow" crowd are "ethnic-'cleansers'" after all.

Q.E.D.

>171

No on the Q.E.D. They said the "culture to which Trumpists are devoted" -- that's not white culture, it's white supremacist culture. There's a big difference.

>2 amysisson: Agreed.

I notice that Proxy, Meatboy, and several of the other Cons in this group share a peculiar and not entirely charming tendency to spike the ball, rhetorically speaking, any time anyone says anything that in their minds is even close to anything they've ever said. Needless to say, this can be a pretty loose connection, but that never spoils the joy they take in their fist-pumping and chest-thumping.
They also like to run off at full speed in random directions, taking their erroneous conclusion as a starting point and winding up in some pretty unexpected and indeed unjustified places.

In this case it was Quite an Erroneous Demonstration indeed!

Let's go through it point by point. Prox in italics

There we have it. "White culture"="pollution."

As you say, Prox misreads the quoted post, to start with.

Thank you. That's as clear an admission of the real objective as I could ask to have from these people.

They then take their misreading to represent "these people" as a whole, on the mistaken assumption that all people who disagree with them share a single position.

These are the people ('peace-loving' 'humanitarian' 'liberals') who show an apparently sincere
shock and resentment that they and their ideology (just described above in one of the rare cases
of open honesty) are not embraced affectionately by those whose culture they've designated for
systematic elimination by demographic "dilution".

And, even while admitting that their misreading does not in any way demonstrate the views expressed by "these people", somehow professes to believe that their one-off misreading represents the whole viewpoint shared by everyone who ever disagreed with them. Note the phrase "one of the rare cases of open honesty": in other words, "I want to pretend that it's what they've meant all along despite the fact that we've never seen anybody say anything like this".

There's also a back-handed compliment in this: it implies that those who'd object to and vigorously resist the annihilation of their culture through whatever the means are people who aren't expected to go quietly. They and their culture must be deliberately targeted for elimination.

And just for good measure, spins this up into something well beyond even what their original misreading would have justified, even if it had not been a misreading.

The tactics and the methodology of are different from the Nazi's "Final Solution" but the desires and intentions are exactly the same. So the "Rainbow" crowd are "ethnic-'cleansers'" after all.

And out of nowhere, a Godwin violation for the boffo finish.

Print this one out and hang it on the wall, folks, this is Prox at their absolute best.

Questions addressed to "Limelite" and Amy Sisson

RE:

"No on the Q.E.D. They said the "culture to which Trumpists are devoted" -- that's not white culture, it's white supremacist culture. There's a big difference."

That, for these "Trumpists," "White culture" means and must mean nothing but "White supremacist culture" (also undefined here so far) is your unsupported opinion.

And "difference" or not, the point here is that your strategy is-- and, of course, would be-- the same either way and you've described it for us: "dilution".

In the present context I don't see how that is to be interpreted as other than "racial" dilution as a means to overthrow--as I suppose you imagine it--" 'White' (supremacist) culture".

So far you haven't bothered to do so but you're welcome to tell us in detail what precisely is to be eliminated in order that this objective is realized. But we already know that the means envisioned is beating "White' people in a population-growth contest. That is what I understand you to mean by "dilution."

(1) What is it in "White supremacy" that would in practice be effectively neutered by racial "dilution" from large and sustained increases in the number of non-"White" relative to "White" people in this context: U.S. society, culture and governing outcomes?

(2) What "race" do you look forward to seeing succeed "Whites" in the position of racial supremacy for the U.S. And how is that supposed to be measured and determined? Dilution as the means suggests that numerical superiority is the key to understanding your vision for "dethroning" the "White" supremacist "culture". (3) So, then, if and when "White" people are reduced to a relative minority, what are we supposed to expect and hope for in different practices?

(4) Is the objective "less racism" as you imagine that or merely less of what you regard as "White" racism? How so?

(5) Are you in fact just as opposed to what you denounce as racism on the part of "White" people if the same things were being done by others--people other than "White"? I haven't seen the slightest indication that you would object equally to some other non-"White" people doing to "White" people the very things for which you condemn "White" people as racist "supremacists."

(6) And what, about such designs, is not flagrantly racist as you and others like you use that term?

>4 proximity1: I don't see how that is to be interpreted as other than "racial" dilution

I would rather interpret it as non-racial dilution. The culture of a nation which is so mixed (comprising at least Native Americans, descendants of early white settlers and of black slaves, and more recent immigrants from all over he globe) should not be defined racially.

we already know that the means envisioned is beating "White' people in a population-growth contest

Here you're projecting the fear of the racists and xenophobes, not the reality.

What "race" are you looking forward to seeing succeed "Whites" in the position of racial supremacy for the U.S.

See my first paragraph. There should be no racial supremacy of any sort.

if and when "White" people are reduced to a relative minority

Then they will be very thankful for all the minority rights legislation that has been introduced. It will protect them in the same way as it is designed to protect current minorities.

Can you not imagine a society which doesn't have to be dominated by one particular culture or race?

As for your opinion

"Frankly, nothing about the 'culture' to which Trumpists are devoted is worth preserving. Thank goodness the immigrants and refugees keep coming! The time grows shorter until they will solve the problem of white supremacy.

"The solution to pollution is dilution."

the voters shall decide in the coming elections how much, if anything, that opinion's sentiments are worth.

That's how it rightly ought to be.

>1 proximity1:

You have no reading comprehension. I didn't say "white culture" (No one has ever heard of such a thing. Black culture, yes.). See comment #2 in this thread. Your ego stroked itself once too often again.

You forgot that the only time you cut off the limb you're stuck on is when you're hanging from it.

Please proceed to swing.

>6 proximity1: As for your opinion, it's not backed by anything other than wishful thinking.

As for my my opinion. . .well, read the facts and weep.

Let's see. . .
NATIONALLY
Biden over Trump by 12 points Fox News poll
Biden over Trump by 13 points Ipsos/Reuters yesterday
Percentage of numbers of voters increasing for Biden by 3 pts. Trump's has fallen by 3 pts. Losing!
Shift to Biden by states is 9 pts. more than Clinton in '16, which translates to an 11 percentage lead over numbers of Trump voters, nationally. Yep, corroborates national polling average that favors Biden by 11 points over Trump.

SWING STATES
Just eight states and one of the congressional districts are considered pure toss-ups. . .less than a quarter of Americans live in the most competitive toss-up states.

Biden leads in all those 8 states, except NC where Trump leads. True, Biden's lead is less than 5 pts in states he leads. (But as shown above, percentage of voters for Biden is GROWING while Trump is LOSING.)

FL The president hasn't led in one since March. Plus, he has seen a softening with support from older voters in national polls. (immigrant state, too)
PA Out of eight polls this year, he has led in six and was tied in one.
OH Biden has led in four of five polls, including a 2-point lead in a Fox News poll released earlier this month.
AZ Biden on "reverse coattails: Ever since 2016, Democrats have done well here. Kyrsten Sinema became Arizona's first woman elected to the Senate — and first Democrat in 30 years — with her 2018 victory. Democrats could see an up-ballot effect in 2020 with a strong candidate in astronaut Mark Kelly on the ballot for the Senate, holding significant leads in polls far beyond Biden's showing. (immigrant state)
WI Trump's approval rating is 11 points underwater in the state now and hasn't risen above 44% in more than three years. Biden has led in nine of 11 polls in Wisconsin since the beginning of the year, trailed in just one and was tied once.
NV Biden leads in the polls by an average of almost 5 points. (immigrant state)

NOTE: FL Gov. DeSantis (R) popularity has declined steadily all year. Collapsing over Covid-19. Lots of older voters for Biden as a result. FL is a Covid state, AZ is a Covid state, TX is a Covid state, even GA is a Covid state. Mishandled pandemic response by Repub govs has lead to second spike in each. Election will in large part turn on Covid states as cases and deaths mount this summer, contrary to Trump, "it'll disappear in the summer" crap.

INCREASINGLY LIKELY SCENARIO -- (not facts, projected probability from current polling)

Take all the states that Clinton won, plus those that were either within 5 points in 2016 or are within 5 points now, and give them to Biden. Result, Biden blowout of 374 electoral votes to Trump's 164. That would be higher than Obama's 365 electoral votes in 2008.

Now, let's see you show me and everyone else active in this thread the FACTS that support Trump winning. No, your ideological delusions just won't do.

>4 proximity1: What "race" do you look forward to seeing succeed "Whites" in the position of racial supremacy for the U.S.

So, just to be crystal clear on this, do you really believe that the sole alternative to white supremacy is the supremacy of some other race?

A simple yes or no will do.

>6 proximity1: the voters shall decide in the coming elections

The voters decided in the last election, but in the US election system it is the college of electors which decides, not the voters. Trump was legally and constitutionally elected, but not by "the voters".

>7 Limelite:

"I didn't say 'white culture' (No one has ever heard of such a thing. Black culture, yes.)" ...

Your post 171 begins with ..."nothing about the 'culture' to which Trumpists are devoted is worth preserving." (emphasis added) and, in the very next sentences you write of "the immigrants and refugees" and how these should "keep coming!" since you contend next that "they will (eventually) solve the problem of white supremacy."

Whatever "White supremacy" and "the problem of" it are and whatever they're supposed to mean--neither of which you bother to specify for us--you take them and their existence for granted. I suppose that explains your passing them off without definition or explanation. You take them for granted and you seem to suppose that everyone else either does or ought to do the same.

Now, whether you recognize or understand it or not, "white supremacy" conceptually logically presupposes some sort, however variable, of "white 'culture'" since 'culture' is the totality of social norms and habits which are passed down from generation to generation and, further, there can be no "White (racial) supremacy" or any other "racial" supremacy for that matter, without a "White" (or other, as the case may be) "culture" to sustain and embody it. And that itself is because, as also has apparently escaped your notice, "race" and "racial" are thoroughly cultural concepts and only cultural concepts, to the extent that they exist at all. (This is why I typically set off these terms in quotation-marks.) One shouldn't infer from this that because something is cultural in nature and characteristics it is therefore probably also less important or unimportant. Not at all. Some cultural things are extremely important while others aren't. Unfortunately for simpletons, reductivists and Trump-haters, life is complicated that way.

The "dominant" "culture," logically, must be that which comprises those habits and norms which most often and reliably influence and direct the course of society's major disputes and differences, and with this, their outcomes through some more or less lasting, more or less accepted resolution.

Maybe these things escape our notice since, lately, we've known so little in either lasting or accepted resolution of disputes and differences.

Something else in your comments strikes me as revelatory of the assumptions as they operate in your line of argument. I don't imagine for a moment that this is unique to you--far from it.

How is "White supremacy," as a problem, to be "solved"? According to you, the answer is by racial "dilution" and, specifically, by importing enough non-"Whites" to reduce the U.S. White population to a relative minority. Some so-called "liberals" cheer this objective as an already-accomplished fact. But, apparently for many of these same, to use a variation on a familiar expression, a country, and, in particular, the U.S., just "can't have too many" non-White people.

In the U.S., one prominent aspect, as I understand it, of non-Whites' grievances is just this numerical minority status. Never mind that they have a panoply of rights formally and expressly protected in law, rights which apply to each and every individual, no matter how few their numbers in aggregate may be. Still, they haven't sufficient numbers to have a determinative voice in many democratic processes--especially where national electoral processes are concerned. Thus, it seems, they complain that they feel marginal relative to others, especially those whose numbers make them, as supposed identity-groups, far more numerous.

We're told the "solution" to this vexing problem is to import so many non-Whites that the result is U.S. Whites are then relegated, numerically, to this same relatively-marginal status. In that way, apparently, "everything will be set right".

Odd, isn't it? The avowed source of so much persistent social frustration and resentment in communities of non-White racial minorities is supposed to work as a "solution" when it comes to artificially-arranging things so that Whites occupy this same status. Why, I wonder, shouldn't Whites find it just as objectionable as non-Whites apparently do? Are these somehow inherently so different from each other? The premise of so much in genuine liberal political philosophy rests on the fundamental precept that, legally and morally, all people, whatever their "race," creed or skin-color, are equal and in the most essential features of human nature, effectively the same.

We ought to expect, then, that the practical consequences of what you propose as the "solution" to currently intolerable racial injustice is merely to swap one set of victims for another different set.

That, I think, is the basis on which so many find your views, your assumptions, your arguments and your proposed "solutions" so very revolting and disgusting--in their hypocrisy and their disingenuousness.

from "Google scholar", "white culture" and "white cultural" return, among others, the following menu options:

"white cultures"

"white culture in America"

"white culture norms"

"white cultural identity"

"white cultural appropriation"

"white cultural values"

"white cultural norms"

"white cultural hegemony"

"white cultural heritage"

"white cultural practices"

_____________________________

RE >8 Limelite:

"Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. ... remember that the value of an investment ... can go down as well as up, and ... may not get back (to some former higher-point) ...."

See you after polling day.
_____________________________

>11 proximity1:

"See you after polling day."

No you won't. You won't show up here any more.

>12 Limelite:

Wishful thinking on your part--just like your projecting Trump's defeat in November, provided, that is, that you even credit the idea that the November election shall take place according to custom.



(Mary Mapes Dodge, 1884 (public domain))

>13 proximity1:

Before you can project your wishful thinking on me, you have to produce the evidence that that's what it is. You can't. So, you don't.

>13 proximity1: "Custom"? I think you'll find it's called a "law". But of course Trumplets don't know or care that much about "laws", do they?

>14 Limelite:

People who, since January 6th, 2017, if not a full month or more before that, resolutely refused to respect a legitimate U.S. presidential election's outcome are here trying to lecture me on "law" and "decency"?

That's "puke-worthy."

>4 proximity1: Still wondering about this: What "race" do you look forward to seeing succeed "Whites" in the position of racial supremacy for the U.S.

Am I to assume from your silence that the obvious reading of this question holds, and that you feel that racial supremacy is a necessary fact of human existence, and the only question is which race is to be supreme?

>16 proximity1:

Lecture you? I've only ever lectured the educable.

If that's how you feel about it, don't pull your head out of the toilet for the next presidential term, 'cause the Trumpty-Dumbpties are going to resolutely refuse to respect a legitimate U.S. presidential election's outcome. Oh, add the US Senatorial elections, too.

>17 kiparsky:

There's no reason to "assume," deduce.

RE: 183 (on the previous page of this thread)

Anyone who's spent any time listening to him knows that, in his podcast commentaries, Sam Harris has already repeatedly summarized the choices people have where serious and stubborn problems and the controversies which surround them are concerned:

they amount to

either some form of a combination of reason and discussion leading to a resolution (or, at least, averting a crisis)

or, failing that,

some form of violence, more or less serious and deadly.

We--or others after us (before it's too late & that isn't easy to know)--either devise an effective way of reasoning out the problems which present real prospects for serious violence or they're going to eventually lead to serious violence--as though there hasn't already been violence.

That means violence between and among Americans (U.S.) which worsens beyond anything we've seen concerning these affairs up to this point.

It does strike me that you lot have missed something this important and that, in doing that, you demonstrate that in so many ways and on so many issues, you really don't know what the fuck you're playing at. It's serious and you show no indication of understanding that.

>17 kiparsky:

"Still wondering about this..."

Yes, that figures.

>18 Limelite: writes,

">17 kiparsky: kiparsky:

There's no reason to 'assume,' deduce."

I'll second that reasoning-challenge RE >17 kiparsky:

Kiparsky, if you're able to, then "go figure."

______________________

>18 Limelite:

"the Trumpty-Dumbpties are going to resolutely refuse to respect a (i.e. 'the next presidential term'(s')) legitimate U.S. presidential election's outcome."

Of all the nerve!

I not only hereby promise to respect, outcome still unknown, the next U.S. presidential election's outcome, I'll actually openly live up to my promise.

You've done neither as concerned the 2016 election. Rather, we now have direct evidence that you don't respect electoral outcomes which don't prove to suit your wishes. Your doing so again in January 2021 cannot come as any surprise to those of us observing.

So here we have you, openly challenging another via your prediction of that same other's failure to act in a morally-respectably way—namely, respecting an electoral outcome in a legitimate election contest— in a manner and regarding an issue about which you, yourself have so conspicuously failed since the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

That is "you 'all over.'"

>20 proximity1: Okay, so you're confirming that >17 kiparsky: is the correct reading of your statement and that's what you intended to mean.

I just want to make sure I understand what you're actually saying, since you all get so bent out of shape when you think someone's read you wrong.

>21 kiparsky:

No, I'm not and, no, it isn't.

But, as I see it, if your reasoning-skills were up to what you seem to me to think they are, then you had and you have all the information you'd need to have understood that:

I haven't (confirmed any such thing as you supposed) and it isn't (the correct reading).

As for my "get(ting) so bent out of shape when (I) think someone's read (me) wrong," I can hardly find it surprising when you and your camp read me wrong. I'm more surprised when you don't. Getting things wrong is your strong suit.

As you've just demonstrated again.

You write, "I just want to make sure I understand what you're actually saying."

Well, it seems to me that what I'm saying is right there in black and white. If it's not clear to you, then something must be getting in the way.

Rather than explain to such a sharp reasoner as yourself what I think that something may be, I thought I'd leave that simple task to you as part of the reasoning-challenge.

You'd find that it's quite clear from just some careful review of what's in the thread,

—why I've left your question (repeated) in >17 kiparsky: with no direct answer,

and, from that,

—the "why" of, the point and import of, other things I've written, and, notably, in the questions posed to (and ignored by) Amy Sisson and Limelite in >4 proximity1:, above.

You might ask their help but I doubt that they can help you much with the answers, being, I suspect, as lost as, if not more so, than are you.

>20 proximity1:

Too bad. You don't get to make the rules for how I think about Trumpty-Dumpties.

You accuse me of not respecting an election that was corrupt, according to all the recognized evidence; I bet you won't respect another perfectly legitimate election that puts Biden in office any more than you (collective, in order to include your fellow ideological travelers) did Obama's two terms.

Hell, you Trump supporters are attracted to Trump because he's the birther leader and as firm a disrespect-er of the man, Obama, being as born in the USA as you! That's the record. FACT.

>22 proximity1: Wow, getting a straight answer out of you is absolutely impossible. So you'd rather write 270 words of bafflegab than just answer a simple question? Okay... let's try again. You wrote:

What "race" do you look forward to seeing succeed "Whites" in the position of racial supremacy for the U.S.

This question contains a presupposition that someone in this conversation believes that some race must be "in a position of racial supremacy for the US". Obviously if you think nobody holds this belief, then this question is nonsensical, so the ways you could read this are: the speaker holds this belief, the speaker wants to suggest that the addressee holds this belief, or both of the above.

So either you hold this belief, or you're trying to imply that Limelight and amysisson hold this belief, or you're talking nonsense.

Since you introduced this belief into the conversation, and nobody else has suggested that it's a belief they hold, if you're trying to ascribe it to someone else, then you're trying to argue in a dishonest way, by introducing a false allegation as a presupposition.

So once again: do you believe that racial supremacy is a necessary condition of human existence, or were you trying (dishonestly) to ascribe that belief to others, or were you talking nonsense?

And please stop trying to be clever. If you were able to write with any clarity or precision, I assure you I wouldn't have to ask this question.

>24 kiparsky:

Projectors are gonna project.

>23 Limelite:

Not only or merely ridiculous, you are hilarious. I have to give you that.

"Make" them? —I don't presume to "make the rules" or, that is, to prescribe for you how you're to "think about 'Trumpty-Dumpties.' "

LOL!

I do, however, "get to" mention here the yawning chasm between your habits in these discussion fora and age-old standards of fairness, honest practice, ways of treating facts and truths with the respect these are due—not because "I say so" or because these standards of honest comportment are in some way "my inventions" but because it, that is, the yawning chasm, well, "it's there."

And that's, yes, ridiculous.

I do "get to" observe you making a mockery of a decent respect for the truth—and not merely the truth as I see it, but the truth as you've reported it, but this, in your case, happens when and, of course only when the partisan "shoe" is on the other "foot."

And, yes, I do "get to" point these faults of yours out. But I certainly haven't "made up" these or any other "rules"; nor do I claim the right or presume to do any such thing.

Such double-standards are your specialty. I'm obliged to respect facts whether I like them or not. There are many unflattering but quite true things about Donald Trump, the president. But the claim that he was never the legitimate victor in the 2016 U.S. presidential election is not one of them. That's your claim. For absurdity, it matches many of the absurd things which Trump has asserted and many absurd things he's been falsely accused of having said.

You have no respect at all for this man as president of the United States and not much more respect for facts or truths except to the extent that they may be partially convenient to your flagrant partisan biases.

(You) "You accuse me of not respecting an election that was corrupt, according to all the recognized evidence;"...

It wasn't any such thing. That's a comforting delusion to which you and many like you cling. I don't accuse you of not respecting an election—corrupt or not. I observe you refusing to respect an election's legitimate result—refuse because, and only because you hate both that result and the man who by it became president of the United States, not some lack of legitimacy about the result.

You write that you "bet (I) won't respect another perfectly legitimate election that puts Biden in office any more than ...(I and those you imagine to be like me, respected).. Obama's two terms."

You're as wrong about that as you so typically are about so many other things. If Biden is elected, I'm not going to refuse to admit it and, in that way, refuse to respect the fact and truth of the result—unlike what you are doing concerning Trump's election.

And, though I didn't vote for Obama in either his first or second run for president, I never gave the slightest credit to any of Trump's nonsense about Obama's circumstances of birth or questions of his U.S. citizenship. Never. And you'll search in vain for any word of mine in support of such "Birth-er" stuff. Nor have I in my entire life ever been in any political-party sense of the term a "Republican." I'm a "small-'r' 'republican'" in the same way I'm a "small-'d' 'democrat.'"

And this, from you, is hilarious, as well as flatly untrue, but hilarious in a way I have to suppose you don't know and, to be fair, just haven't become acquainted with as a fact about me:

"Hell, you Trump supporters are attracted to Trump because he's the birther leader and as firm a disrespect-er of the man, Obama, being as born in the USA as you! That's the record. FACT."

LOL! Actually, and ironically, no, it isn't."
That's why I especially love your having put "fact" in all-capital-letters. ;^) "FACT"

Read on to learn why none of those, applied to me, are "FACTS" in fact.

1) I always rejected Trump's "Birth-er" stuff as I've already explained. So this certainly never attracted me seriously to Trump. I always thought it was ridiculous— but I also dismissed it as silly, uninteresting, unimportant—because so obviously and ridiculously untrue—and a showman's Vaudeville stunt.

2) As for Obama's being "as born in the USA" as I—well, that's quite funny. You see, Obama, it happens, is even "more" "born in the USA" than am I. Not more of a naturally-born U.S.-citizen than I am, for on that point, like Obama, I am: a U.S. citizen by birth and, unlike Obama, I had two natural-born U.S.-citizens as my natural parents. Obama had only one.

But I wasn't born in the United States proper. I was born on a U.S. military base in England, which, under the U.K. law then in effect, made me a U.K. citizen, while, at the same time, under U.S. law, a natural U.S. citizen and thus a citizen of both the United Kingdom and the U.S. of A.—and both of these by and from the date of my birth.

And so, in conclusion, to quote you,

"That's the record. FACT." (emphasis added)

You're very wrong and very amusing.

LOL!

Just a reminder of some of the situations which drive people to flee their homes, and the problems they face once they have become refugees. There are a lot of Sudanese refugees in the rich nations of USA, Canada and Australia due to government-sponsored programmes, but impoverished Uganda is probably the most generous host country in the world.

‘I saw so much killing’: the mental health crisis of South Sudan refugees (Guardian)

Oh, the irony:

Mexico closes border in Arizona as coronavirus cases in both countries surge

So, folks are not only unwilling to die to rescue Trump's lousy economy. Schools are unwilling to kill for Trump's egotistical culture war, either.

Trump threatens to deport international university students and promptly get sued by a pair of Massachusetts' most prestigious institutions that need to protect a substantial portion of their life's blood.

I'm old enough to remember when Republicans shouted "Freedom!" and "Government is the enemy!"
(Ronnie Ray-Gun). But now those same idjits want Trump's Big Government to interfere in every little aspect of life from women's wombs, to college operations, to military justice and promotions, to medical recommendations made by actual medically qualified people.

Is there a psychiatric diagnostic term for malicious stupidity beyond sociopath?

Pope at Mass: Seek God's face in the poor, sick, abandoned and foreigners (Vatican News)

Pope Francis on Wednesday urged Christians to discover the face of Jesus in the migrants, refugees and the displaced who are forced to flee because of the many injustices that still afflict our world today...

For the Christians amongst Trump's supporters, the pope's words might be worth considering.