| /u/gabillionsOriginal post: I am a former NSA/CIA guy and business owner. Here's why I'm voting for trump |
I'm absolutely tired of Trump supporters being characterized as "White, poor, and uneducated". I'm not any of those three things. It's no wonder that the country's political establishment has no idea why someone like me would vote for Trump. Here's why:
My reasons for Trump:
Why not Bernie
- National security: This is a big deal to me. The other candidates haven't put forth a single item that improves it, except Trump. People laugh when Trump mentions The Wall, but it's actually a good idea. As someone who has worked closely with CBP/DHS and who worked at the National Counter-Terrorism Center in order to prevent terrorists from entering the country, the Mexican border is one of the weakest vectors of infiltration we have. Shoring this area up has only positive benefits: putting a large stop to illegal drug/weapons/human trafficking; making it exceedingly difficult for terrorists to enter the country unnoticed; giving us the ability to refocus a lot of the money spent on personnel patrolling the border areas.
- Healthcare Plan: The plan that he just released is the absolutely best healthcare plan that any candidate has put forth. Although I was a Trump supporter beforehand, reading it made me only want to vote for Trump more, as it shows that he is both standing up for middle class americans (lowering premiums by allowing more competition; decreasing pharmaceutical costs; allowing individuals to fully deduct premiums) while still being compassionate to the poor (making sure people who can't afford healthcare can still get the healthcare they need). He even made it a point to say during the debates that he doesn't want people dying in the streets because they can't afford healthcare. Points like this are constantly glossed over as others attempt to demonize him.
- Trump can make deals: This sounds ridiculous to people who support candidates like Ted Cruz (who would take a strong stance on things), but the reality in D.C. is that you have to be willing to work with people in order to pass legislation. I absolutely recognize this need for cooperation between political parties, and I don't want a president who people aren't willing to work with (Bernie Sanders included). When you are too far left or too far right, you take an untenable position. As Trump moves to the center for the presidential election (as all candidates inevitably do), I think he will leave the most room for cooperation with other political interests.
- Foreign policy: This is hailed as Trump's weakest point, and people are not wrong. Trump as a figurehead of the United States, however, could prove to be a huge asset in one very important area -- repairing the relationship with Russia. Can you imagine a level of cooperation with a country like Russia where you're not each trying to fund multiple groups in middle-eastern proxy wars? Russia is very committed to eliminating terrorists/extremists, and cooperation with them could bring an end to the foothold that groups like ISIS have found in recent years. Strong, authoritarian figures only respect other strong, authoritarian figures, and Trump would represent the United States no longer allowing people to take advantage of its resources because of perceived weakness.
I get the excitement people feel over Bernie, and I started out for Bernie. The more I thought on all the things that sound nice such as free college, a living wage, racial justice, etc. the more I realized the inherent flaws with those things.
Why not Hillary
- Free College: It sounds good from the outset, as education has been a key differentiator for people to move up in income. But making college free is effectively extending the education system by 4-5 years, and removing people from the legitimate pipelines of other career paths: the military, trade schools, immediately entering the job force after high school, and so on. There is absolutely good money to be made installing HVAC systems or fixing toilets/washers/dryers, but why would someone start down that path if they feel their degree means they deserve cushy job as a middle-management type. The end result is: everyone has a degree, therefore no one has a degree. People in my industry (software development) actually tend to completely disregard someone's degree when looking at a candidate, which is more akin to what the future of the work force looks like (excepting jobs that require a degree such as an engineer, medical professional, etc.).
- Living Wage: I think most educated people can see the flaw to this type of plan. If I pay someone $15/hr plus the federally mandated medical benefits, etc. then as a business owner I would have to greatly increase the prices of my goods/services in order to have a chance at growing the business. So all the businesses increase their prices, the $15/hr buys less, homeowners/landowners increase rent in order to pay for the price increase of things, and you've effectively done nothing.
- Racial Justice: Talking about race is just about the most un-American thing you can do. Who gives a shit where your parents/grandparents came from -- Who are you going to be? The politics of the left are to divide people by race, religion, sexual orientation, and then pander to each division. Trump might be a polarizing force, but that's a very good thing. Unity in the identity of being an "American" is a much more powerful ideal than saying "We're Black/White/Asian/Hispanic and we're American", because where does the division end? Do we then split up Hispanics by the individual country? I know for a fact that El Salvadoreans see themselves as completely different than Guatemalans. Should we then make sure that workplaces are made up of 1.2% El Salvadoreans and 0.6% Guatemalans. What if you have someone born of an El Salvadorean and a Guatemalan parent. There is no logical end to division. The laws of the country should be color blind. Unity in an American identity is the answer.
- National Security: Say what you want about Obama, but when he got into office after having made so many promises related to reigning in national security elements, he was handed intelligence reports of how things really are. He then made the choice to change his stance in light of new information. Guys like Bernie are passionate, and that passion makes them stubborn. If Bernie gets into office, he would absolutely start cutting national security programs regardless of what information came in, as he has promised in his campaign platform. Knowing what I know, it would be an absolute disaster to see the country go down a path of dismantling the programs that have nullified most attempts to attack the United States.
- Classified Emails: If I had done what Hillary had done when I held a TS/SCI clearance, I would be in jail for 10+ years without hesitation from any judge presiding over the case. This is a big deal, as the definition for Top Secret (which we all had to learn by heart in the military) was "which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security" if disclosed. She instructed people to wipe classification headings from documents and send them to an insecure server.
- Making Deals: Hillary is the only other candidate I believe would actually be able to pass legislation, as she is also able to effectively make deals. With the way the Clintons act, though, I could never trust that their intentions would be for the good of the United States, with actions like pardoning one of the FBI's most wanted in exchange for a 1 million+ donation. In my mind, that only leaves Trump.
- Other Things: There's a laundry list of my anti-Hillary sentiment, but they're all Trumped by the classified emails scandal. She's not a viable candidate because she committed a crime and will soon receive her punishment. If I know the administration that exists though, the plan is this: 1) Push forward any criminal action as fast as possible. 2) Conclude the case before the next president takes office. 3) Pardon Hillary so that the next president (Trump) can't force the DOJ to pursue a criminal indictment that she can't be pardoned out of.