Summary: A "conservative" Trump supporter asks if I'm OK with "vulgar protesting", if I accept Trump as president, if it's OK that Obama is "taking down" Trump, do I approve of litter and destruction, do I research both sides of issues, why do "you liberals" think conservatives want dirty air & water, and the left is just as tribal as the right.

Note: I don't respond to comments like these thinking there's any hope of changing the questioner's mind. This thinking is too ingrained in "conservatives" to be vulnerable to logic. This is for those who hear similar questions and comments to understand how misguided "conservatives" are.

Contents

The several questions
OK with Vulgar women protesting?
Accept Trump as President?
OK with Obama "Taking Down" Trump?
Do I Approve of Litter & Destruction?
Do I do adequate research, including research on opposing views?
Why do "you liberals" believe conservatives want dirty air & water?
The Left is as tribal as the right?

The several questions
These are questions from a Trump/Republican supporter received by way of FB Messenger:

Down you approve of the women protesting wearing little pink pointed hats, and other female anatomy? Do you approve of having children present at such events? Do you accept Trump as president? Do you approve of Obama trying to take Trump down when all prior presidents have stepped aside and began working on their home town libraries? I am fine with protesting, but why so vulgar? In retards to other protesting, do you agree with the destruction of property and the litter that is left behind? When you do your own articles do you research all possibilities? I think you can find data to support both sides and you can twist and ignore such facts to support your position as can any opposing view. With that said, what makes your position the right one? I am obviously not as educated as you are, but that does not mean I am ignorant or any less of a person which is another reason why I think the posting your articles comes across as arrogant or belittling. I respectively await your response. Thanks...

Also why do you liberals believe conservatives want dirty air and water? Why would the republicans want dirty air and water when they breathe the same air and drink the same water as you? Who set up the EPA?

Further more the left is just as tribal as the right.

Answering them one at a time:

OK with Vulgar women protesting?
Q. Down you approve of the women protesting wearing little pink pointed hats, and other female anatomy? Do you approve of having children present at such events? I am fine with protesting, but why so vulgar?

Yes, I do approve. I am not going to judge those who protest against Trump, who has been revealed as venal and sexist. Seriously, in modern times there has never been a president who has been as vulgar or as great a liar as Trump.

Whether children are there is up to their parents, not up to me or up to you. They likely see this as showing their children what's not acceptable.

This objection is essentially about the protesters being, in the eyes of so-called "conservatives", "politically incorrect". Rich irony and hypocrisy, given Trump supporters love him for being "politically incorrect". I mean, why should women object to how he's referred to women ...

Why Trump Survives By GWENDA BLAIR 8/10/15
His over-the-top response to Megyn Kelly is classic Donald. Call it the art of the kill.

When the Fox News host [Fox News' Megyn Kelly], clearly trying to be provocative, asked Trump whether calling women "fat pigs," "dogs," "slobs," and "disgusting animals" at various times meant he had the wrong temperament to be president, Trump responded by saying the country was in too bad a state to bother with political correctness. ...

During business meetings, he told associates that Maples, who became his second wife and the mother of his fourth child, had "nice tits, no brains," and he later tossed her overboard with an even smaller settlement.

7 Quotes That Show Donald Trump Doesn't Like Women

Subservient women seem to know their place and be quite OK with this.  Others are not.

Accept Trump as President?
Q. Do you accept Trump as president?

Trump is the President.

That said, this "so-called" President is not my President because I object to every single thing Republicans are doing and want to do. Trump is self-dealing, corrupt, an inveterate liar, and a fraud ... and more. He is the perfect Republican ... only less guarded in what he says.

Examples:

-- Violated Oath of Office: He's violated the Constitution's emoluments clause from Day 1. He just got favorable treatment from China.

China grants preliminary approval to 38 new Trump trademarks By ERIKA KINETZ, AP, 3/8/17

China has granted preliminary approval for 38 new Trump trademarks, a move that offers a potential business foothold for President Donald Trump's family company and protects his name in a country notorious for counterfeiters. ... All but three are in the president's own name. ...

Ethics lawyers across the political spectrum say that if Trump receives any special treatment in securing trademark rights, it would violate the U.S. Constitution, which bans public servants from accepting anything of value from foreign governments unless approved by Congress. ...

Dan Plane, a director at Simone IP Services, a Hong Kong intellectual property consultancy, said he had never seen so many applications approved so expeditiously.

Plane said he would be "very, very surprised" if officials from the ruling Communist Party were not monitoring Trump's intellectual property interests. "This is just way over your average trademark examiner's pay grade," he said.

The marks include branded spa and massage services, golf clubs, hotels, insurance, finance and real estate companies, restaurants, bars, and a trademark class that covers bodyguards, social escorts, and concierge services. ...

-- Self-dealing Ties with Russia: Traitorous Ties to Russia: He is a traitor because of his, and his henchmen's, ties to, and abetting collaboration with, if not collaborating himself with, Russia. 

It's pretty clear his interest is in trading removing sanctions for approving the $500B Russian pipeline, in which he has financial interests. "This deal could explain why Putin appears to have interfered in U.S. elections in favor of a Trump victory." Romm, founding editor of Climate Progress, goes on to say, "if the sanctions are lifted-something a new Secretary of State could help make happen -- it would pay off big time for Exxon. ..."

Trump admits he was lying about everyone being covered, shifting from "everyone covered and the government will pay" to everyone having "access". Gee. That's just like I have "access" to buying a private jet ... just don't have the money. He also admits is profound ignorance. This is what he, and all Republicans, should know about health insurance: Single-Payer Health Insurance. Privatized health insurance without universal coverage doesn't work. Why? First, it's fatally flawed because of adverse selection. Added to that are a bunch of other reasons. When privatized there's less U.S. innovation, higher costs, personal bankruptcy, death, corporations between patients and doctors, obscene CEO pay, and high overhead & profit.

-- Liar: From crowd size -- to winning the popular vote -- to winning by a landslide -- to promising everyone would be covered by health insurance and the government would pay for it. His lies are so numerous they could fill a large book.

Trump's Transition of Untruths, Exaggerations and Flat-out Falsehoods By TAYLOR GEE, BRENT GRIFFITHS and RUAIRÍ ARRIETA-KENNA, Politico, 1/20/17
After a campaign that was largely indifferent to factual accuracy, Trump stayed the course while preparing to be president.

-- A Fraud Who Commits Fraud: Trump settled the Trump University scam for $25M even though he said "I never settle, never)

Surely no one can reasonably object when I apply the same words to Trump that he's used about journalists: "crooked", "lying", "thieving", "dishonest," "disgusting", "corrupt", "scum", "enemy of the American People". Can they?

OK with Obama "Taking Down" Trump?
Q. Do you approve of Obama trying to take Trump down when all prior presidents have stepped aside and began working on their home town libraries?

First, this is supposedly a free country. He can do whatever he wants. If only he had opposed Republicans more vigorously, instead of constantly compromising in advance, when he was President. Instead, he acted like a pretty good Republican.

5 Ways Obama Tries to Work With Republicans and is Rejected by Daniel Bender 1/11/13

Obama's Attempts at Bipartisanship: a Chronological Review, 10/12/12

The PPACA was a huge compromise; it's a Republican approach to health insurance that came out of the Heritage Foundation and very like what Romney did in MA.

Single-payer is the only viable approach; the Republican plan kept secret and just released can only fail due to adverse selection.

Second, "take him down"? Opposing Trump/Republicans is not "taking him down."

Third, it's a lot of nerve to suggest that others should follow past norms when Trump/Republicans are eager to violate any and every norm from the past. Really? Not even giving a Supreme Court nominee a hearing, much less a vote?

Even so-called "conservatives" express concern:

Trump Threatens to Undo Ingrained Norms of Political Self-Restraint by CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, National Review, 10/13/16

Fourth, some may not have noticed that Trump has baselessly [baselessly according to intelligence agencies] accused Obama of a criminal act: tapping Trump's calls.

Do I Approve of Litter & Destruction?
Q. In retards to other protesting, do you agree with the destruction of property and the litter that is left behind?

On "litter", it seems "conservatives don't know the difference between leaving signs on the sidewalk as a show of their opposition to a vile, venal Trump and the "environment.

Litter ... OMG that's an outrage. Destruction of the environment, not so much. See these links showing more of the obscene destruction with which "conservative" Republicans fight for.

Tennessee Territory: A Knoxville Church Group Battles Mountaintop Removal By Stephen George, July 2010

A few high resolution pictures of mountaintop removal coal mining in Kentucky

High Resolution Mountaintop Removal Pictures

This question about littering reminded me of a meme I'd seen on my FB feed. It's on the left of this figure. It came with a comment. Here it is exactly as written: A bunch of sad, misguided, brain washed, potty mouthed and utterly uninformed females. Now that the election is over, the loosers are still in such shock that they have to do something with all that negative energy, an of course this is the best these road scholars could come up with. Disgraceful!

Of course there should be no destruction of property. When there's a huge demonstration, there's no control of who gets in.

When there are accusations of liberals being violent against Trump or anyone else, it's not always true.

Squeaky Wheels Get the Greece, Snopes
A photograph purportedly showing a violent anti-Trump protest in the U.S. was actually taken in Greece in 2012.

FALSE. There were protests and there was some violence, but nothing like in the fake photo taken in Greece. See video of actual U.S. protests at this link.

Let me ask about these issues ... I expect "conservatives" either agree or deny what's happening.

Do you agree with the police killing of blacks, which happens much more than proportional to their population? Blacks 2.5 times more likely to be killed.

Do you agree with the greater incarceration of blacks than whites even though white and black people in the U.S. use and sell drugs at almost the same rate?

Do you agree with the police attacking peaceful protesters at Standing Rock who are defending their water and land? Do you agree with the guy with a rifle who worked for the corporation infiltrating the Indian group?

Are you OK with police pepper spraying peaceful protesters? OK with the officer being awarded $38K for his "psychiatric injury specific or due to continuous trauma from applicant's employment at UC Davis."? [That's more than the $30K each student received!] And then the university paid "$175,000 for consultants to scrub its negative search results" from the internet.

Do I do adequate research, including research on opposing views?
Q. When you do your own articles do you research all possibilities? I think you can find data to support both sides and you can twist and ignore such facts to support your position as can any opposing view. With that said, what makes your position the right one? I am obviously not as educated as you are, but that does not mean I am ignorant or any less of a person which is another reason why I think the posting your articles comes across as arrogant or belittling.

Obviously, I could always do more research. That said, I do more than sufficient research to make my point and back up what I say. I show that "conservative"/libertarian positions are badly flawed and, most often, absolutely wrong.

In doing so, I either state the "conservative"/libertarian position (explicitly or implicitly) or include their specific words *as I do here). It's somewhat obvious that I have to state the "conservative"/libertarian position to criticize it ... by using their own words I do not misrepresent their positions.

On my website I have many examples of this:

Libertarian Objections - 12 examples

Global Warming Denial: A Case Study

Conservative Criticism of 'Much of What's Called Socialism is Just Pragmatic', which responds to a totally off-the-mark criticism of what I wrote in Much of What's Called Socialism is Just Pragmatic.

Trump-Republican Trade Treachery

Global Warming Denial

I do not write articles to justify "conservative"/libertarian false assertions or dysfunctional positions; I explain why they're wrong.

If you feel that's "arrogant", fine. If you feel you're belittled, I suggest that's not my problem. Excuse me for being educated. I understand that "conservatives" don't like those they see as the "elite" ... educated liberals.

However, it's the wealthy Republican puppet masters who are the true elite. So-called "conservatives" are fond of yelling, "But Soros!" The reality is that there's a virtual "murder of crows" on the right: Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess, Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, Robert Mercer, Woody Johnson, Norman Braman, Ken Langone, Joe Ricketts, Peter Thiel. Republicans in the primary had one of their own.

Why do "you liberals" believe conservatives want dirty air & water?
Q. Also why do you liberals believe conservatives want dirty air and water? Why would the republicans want dirty air and water when they breathe the same air and drink the same water as you? Who set up the EPA?

Nixon set up the EPA. Republicans now want it eliminated.

Gallery: Why Nixon Created the EPA by ALEXIS C. MADRIGAL, The Atlantic, 12/2/10

It's almost impossible to imagine such strong bipartisan support for environmental legislation these days, but politicians of all stripes were responding to real and serious problems in the country's towns, suburbs, and wilderness areas.

To return that support, the newly created EPA decided to hire a slough of photographers to document the environmental problems extant in 1970s America. The Documerica project, as it was known, did not make a big impact on the national debate of the day, but it did provide us a remarkable record of the local pollution problems that beset average Americans. It's not surprising policymakers agreed that the nation needed these reforms, even if it cost some small amount of economic growth. Scenes like the ones shown in this gallery are why Nixon, one of the left's most despised figures, created the Environmental Protection Agency.

If it's true that you "conservatives" don't "want dirty air and water", why do you work so hard to eliminate environmental protections ... those dreaded "regulations"?

[It's actually to increase corporate profits though they say it's for more jobs. That's a lie! Here I explain what determines the number of jobs ... regulations have nothing to do with it.]

Do you know who wants to abolish the EPA now? And if not that, undermine its mission?

Trump Says He Loves Clean Air and Water. So Why Is He Gutting the EPA? by REBECCA LEBER, Mother Jones, 3/1/17
The dirty details of the president's environmental policies.

Trump said: We need clean air, clean water. Donald Trump discusses what he would say at the Climate Change Summit, if he was president: "I want to make sure we have clean air and we have clean water. We want to have clean air to breathe and beautiful clean water."

LIAR!

Recall when Trump campaigned on wanting it to be easier to have coal waste runoff into streams? No? Well, that's because he didn't.

This is the way Republicans claim they're "saving" the coal industry ... eliminating regulations that do what Trump said he'd do, but will not.

As State Loosens Oversight, Coal Ash Contaminates Central Kentucky Waterway By Erica Peterson, WFPL, 2/28/17

As Kentucky regulators and utilities are pushing to loosen regulations on the state's coal ash ponds and landfills, more pollution problems are emerging at one of the sites in central Kentucky.

Over the past six years, documents show contaminated water including arsenic and selenium leached from the ash pond at the E.W. Brown Power Station into groundwater and directly into Herrington Lake, near Danville. Despite remedial measures taken by Louisville Gas & Electric and Kentucky Utilities, the pollution persists.

Now, fish tissue sampling has revealed the coal ash pond's selenium runoff has poisoned aquatic life in the lake.

Meanwhile, the same regulators who monitor the runoff from that plant have been working extensively with the utility industry - including a group that represents LG&E and KU - to weaken state regulations governing coal ash.

Experts say that under the new regulations, the pollution at the E.W. Brown plant might never have been detected. ...

Remember when he said his intent is to Roll Back a Clean Water Rule? No. Well, he is planning to.

Remember when he said he would "slash Environmental Protection Agency funding that pays for Great Lakes pollution cleanup by 97 percent"? No?

The fact is: Conservatives aren't and don't!

The Physics of Global Warming 11/06/16

Trump/Republicans are a clear and present danger to all life on earth. This is the ultimate in evil. I will not be around for the most disastrous consequences, so this will not affect me personally. I do not have children, but those who do and don't take this seriously are condemning them to a dystopian future in which billions of humans will die and countless species will go extinct.

The Left is as tribal as the right?

From The Political Compass website. Take the test to see where you stand.

Q. Further more the left is just as tribal as the right.

I criticized both Obama and Bill Clinton, who Republicans should have loved. I supported Sanders in the primary. Though I tried, I could not get any "never-Hillary" Sanders supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton. They simply would not "fall in line" and vote for a right-winger.

First, liberal is not the "left" that's opposite the "right." Liberal is the center. Communism is the opposite of your Republican, privatize-everything, "right." Liberal only looks like the "left" because there is virtually no true "left" left in the United States. Even Sanders is barely to the left of center, with Clinton well to the "right", where Republicans used to be.

Second: It's well-known that Republicans "fall in line". After the vile statements Trump had about his primary opponents, they fell nicely in line behind him.

So-called "conservative" sheep are quite willing to follow, and seek, authoritarians. From the Political Compass ... extreme authoritarian & ignorant "free market" economics are at the upper right hand corner ... that's Republican ... that's extremism.

Third: So-called "conservatives" are attracted to authoritarianism. That's the essence of Republican: following a "strong" leader.

While it's true that those in the Tea Party disagreed with the Republican Party leadership, they disagreed because they see the leadership as not "extreme enough".

Their views: How unAmerican they are is disturbing to say the least.
- 33% ban gays & lesbians from the U.S.
- 20% support slavery

The rise of American authoritarianism by Amanda Taub, Vox, 3/1/16

A niche group of political scientists may have uncovered what's driving Donald Trump's ascent. What they found has implications that go well beyond 2016.Perhaps strangest of all, it wasn't just Trump but his supporters who seemed to have come out of nowhere, suddenly expressing, in large numbers, ideas far more extreme than anything that has risen to such popularity in recent memory. In South Carolina, a CBS News exit poll found that 75 percent of Republican voters supported banning Muslims from the United States. A PPP poll found that a third of Trump voters support banning gays and lesbians from the country. Twenty percent said Lincoln shouldn't have freed the slaves.

Last September, a PhD student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst named Matthew MacWilliams realized that his dissertation research might hold the answer to not just one but all three of these mysteries.

MacWilliams studies authoritarianism - not actual dictators, but rather a psychological profile of individual voters that is characterized by a desire for order and a fear of outsiders. People who score high in authoritarianism, when they feel threatened, look for strong leaders who promise to take whatever action necessary to protect them from outsiders and prevent the changes they fear.

So MacWilliams naturally wondered if authoritarianism might correlate with support for Trump.

He polled a large sample of likely voters, looking for correlations between support for Trump and views that align with authoritarianism. What he found was astonishing: Not only did authoritarianism correlate, but it seemed to predict support for Trump more reliably than virtually any other indicator. He later repeated the same poll in South Carolina, shortly before the primary there, and found the same results, which he published in Vox: [see graph in article].

Trump, the fear monger.

Fourth: What's also true is that "fear mongering" motivates "conservatives", i.e., Republicans, more than liberals (though right-wing rhetoric can also sway them). Trump ran on fear, hatred and intolerance. It worked.

This talk, Election 2016 Fatal Attraction 092216, by Dr. Sheldon Solomon, Professor of Psychology, Skidmore College explains how Trump/Republicans use the power of FEAR of death to motivate voters. It's over an hour, but well worth it.

He explains, and shows data to prove, that Republicans are significantly more vulnerable to being swayed by messages that increase the awareness of "mortality salience": the awareness by an individual that his or her death is inevitable.

Because I point out the fact that Anthropogenic Global Warming is an Existential Threat to Life on Earth, I'm accused of over-the-top "fear mongering".

The opposite is true regarding who does the fear mongering. Trump, and other Republicans, enthusiastically promote fear of Mexicans, Muslims, Syrian refugees, and African Americans ... such messages, Solomon points out, promote mortality salience.