DH won't denounce Trump. AIBU to expect him to?

[FabulousUsername]

Just wondering if anyone else has encountered this. I haven't been very politically involved in the past but I have a keen sense of right and wrong and I detest Trump's bullying ways. And most everything he says, I'm sure there is no need to explain the revulsion I feel about his leadership. DH would say, at a push, that he's a bit of a monster but that he has a point, that he's a guy who gets things done, he knows 'how the world works'.

I'm seeing patriarchy everywhere...and I feel really aggrieved that H tacitly supports the view that it is our destiny. As a bit of backstory, he does belittle my work and (I now realise) looks down on women generally. For example, joking about men trading in wives for younger models like Trump-- clever guy, eh (me with bored sarcastic eye roll). I've responded to this by saying that the door is open and if he wants to trade me in he's welcome to. But he insists its banter and all men talk like that and that I can't take a joke. Old stuff, really, but in the context of the Trump presidency it suddenly seems crucial for him to realise that this sort of joke isn't acceptable. Not one bit. And it isn't funny to joke about me wanting to march in protest to Trump. I keep thinking he will change and be on my side, so to speak, but so far no sign of it.

Would you choose to 'agree to disagree'? Or would the thought of being married to a Trump apologist be a dealbreaker?

If my husband said the word 'banter' in a normal sentence, I would seriously vonsidrr divorce. Saying the word 'banter' - well he might as well say 'I'm a mysogynist/racist/sexist twat'. Because it is only used to excuse the above behaviours.

Dunno I I could be married to him.

I find it hard not to "bored sarcastic eyeroll" at the number of people who, like you, "have not been politically involved" but are happily jumping on the current fashionable bandwagon.

Maybe roll your eyes back to the news, if you can? If you're genuinely unable to see that the first week of Trump's presidency has signalled an abrupt, shocking and increasingly ominous change in politics, then you need to pay closer attention. It's not even a purely partisan concern: the way he's operating is a huge red flag to anyone, and I'm glad there are at least a few decent Republicans who are standing up to this. Drastic, ill-formed, unjust measures; gag orders; immediate firing of anyone who disagrees; aggressive press briefings with outright and provable lies (sorry: 'alternative facts') - this, and all the rest of it, is not even slightly normal, or acceptable, and to call its widespread opposition 'bandwagon jumping' (like this is the ice-bucket challege) is pathetic.

It's absolutely and clearly intended to target Muslim immigrants in particular (though, as with all such instruments, it's a blunt and imprecise weapon) - Rudy Giuliani has admitted as much.

Can you take a deep breath and agree to discuss it in two weeks?

Just do nothing. Have a think about what attitudes of your DH bother you and then ask him specifically about those. Don't make it about Trump. You really don't want to LTB over him.

There is a lot of hysterical relationship advice on this thread.

His support of Trump is a symptom, not the problem. He thinks all men make jokes that demean and belittle women. They don't. He thinks having that sort of behaviour normalised and endorsed through political leaders and role models isn't harmful. It is.

This isn't about expecting your husband to have the same political opinions as you - that's a straw man set up by some posters here. It's about whether you have the same fundamental values.

It's absolutely and clearly intended to target Muslim immigrants in particular (though, as with all such instruments, it's a blunt and imprecise weapon) - Rudy Giuliani has admitted as much.

And it's shocking exactly how? It's an extension of Obama's policy, and was a key issue in the Trump campaign. No point being flabbergasted now, 18+ months after Trump announced his candidacy with immigration being one of his key focuses.

There is a lot of hysterical relationship advice on this thread

Not really. I just think people find it hard to understand how the OP can be married to such a pig.

I think everyone who supports someone who enacts racist policy is supporting someone who enacts racist policy. So yes. It's kind of tautologous, you see. - You don't think people can support a party/person yet not support every policy? There has never been a politician whereby I have supported their every single policy, I imagine most people feel the same way. Therefore we sometimes vote/support for those in spite of those policies rather than because of them. For example I know people who support Trump but think this policy is abhorrant. Likewise I know people who dislike Trump but think this policy is brilliant.

And, yes: one disagreement about one political figure, YABU to leave your husband. But this as the culmination of constant disdain and disrespect (and fuck the word 'banter': I agree with DonaldStott; it only ever seems to be used when someone's making a joke at your expense and bullying you into laughing at it, too) is something else.

"It's absolutely and clearly intended to target Muslim immigrants in particular"

It seems to be clearly intended to target specific countries. Is there any mention of religion in his executive order?

Let's keep to facts. It's a stay of immigration. It's not a permanent ban, nor does it apply exclusively to Muslims

It is a ban, whether it is temporary or not. And christians can apply for exemptions, so yes, it IS a Muslim ban.
If you want to keep to facts, make sure you have the right ones.

OP, he's a twat.

There has never been a politician whereby I have supported their every single policy, I imagine most people feel the same way. Therefore we sometimes vote/support for those in spite of those policies rather than because of them.

But policies aren't equal; some, if enacted, will affect a small number of people, or affect a large number of people in a minor way. And some will be life-changing to many, and some are based on clear principles of hatred or disregard for a particular group - the poor, the disabled, an ethnic minority.

If you're still voting for this politician or party despite a policy, you might not feel particularly invested or supportive in its outcome, but you're still enabling it to happen. So you might not feel racist/disablist/etc, but what you're saying is that causing harm to this group of people is not, for you, a deal-breaker.

greascot - I'm not shocked. I've never liked Trump. I think he's been absolutely honest from the start that he was running on a xenophobic platform. Which is why I don't believe anyone who supports him can claim ignorance.

seminormal - to me, there are policies that are dealbreakers, that should be dealbreakers because they are so morally repugnant that they make a candidate unacceptable for public office. Racism, sexism, homophobia for me are qualities that place men beyond the pale.

*
In other news, check out the latest offering from Breakfart. Women should not be allowed places on STEM courses because they can't cut it in competitive environments. Ladies, we should make way for the men to have those places as it is a 'disaster for the men who missed out on places'.

www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/15/heres-why-there-ought-to-be-a-cap-on-women-studying-science-and-maths/

What's the link to Trump? In case anyone lives under a rock, Breakfart was founded and chaired by Steve Bannon, the anti-semitic misogynist who ran Trump's election campaign, who has now been appointed to the National Security Council.

You don't think people can support a party/person yet not support every policy?

This isn't about a policy, though, is it - it's about the underlying values.

I think to be able to support a politician enacting clearly racist policies means you are, at a minimum, unconcerned enough about racism and its impact to be able to decide that the underlying racism is unimportant.

It's an interesting questionnaire- whether deciding that overt racism is unimportant is itself a racist act.

It is a ban, whether it is temporary or not. And christians can apply for exemptions, so yes, it IS a Muslim ban.
If you want to keep to facts, make sure you have the right ones.

"Ban" implies it's permanent.

And, sure, they can apply for exemption but they merely move up the priority list, they aren't automatically granted entry. If you're trying to weed out potentially radicalised people - which is what this policy is intended for; these countries were nominated by Obama as "hotbeds" for radicalisation -, you're obviously going to bump non-Muslims up the list. It's economising.

You don't think people can support a party/person yet not support every policy?

ALL the policies are fucking horrendous though. Every last one of them. The entire ethos and intent is appalling. If you support Trump in ANY way, you're an awful cunt of a human.

No, "ban" doesn't imply permanence at all. We had a "ban" on moving livestock during foot and mouth - no-one actually thought it would last forever.

To argue that all Muslims from those countries are likely to be radicalised is racist.

"Ban" implies it's permanent

Under what definition of the word?

When someone gets a driving ban, the first question is 'for how long?'

"Ban" implies it's permanent

Nothing in the word ban implies any duration at all.

SansComic. The ban exempts 'religious minorities' (i.e. Christians) from those countries from the ban and Rudi Guiliani has admitted it was about finding a legal way to bar Moslems. So Yes, it is religiously targeted. Some Islamic countries (including, ironically, those that the 9/11 hijackers came from) are exempt. These are all nations where Trump has significant business interests.

GreatScot and ComicSans -huge kudos to both of you for expressing what I was thinking of posting, but far more articulately!

he just banned Muslim immigrants from a number of non-US allied countries. If that's not enough to call racism, I don't know what is.

Let's keep to facts. It's a stay of immigration. It's not a permanent ban, nor does it apply exclusively to Muslims.

Well said.

However, Stay of Immigration isn't as dramatic and hand wringing- worthy as
He's banned All Muslims! For Ever! [eek]

I would say that a fair percentage of protestors are protesting for the right reasons, but there are also a lot of idiots who are jumping on the bandwagon and believe any old drivel they read.

Why aren't those same people taking to the streets over Israelis being banned from a lot of Muslim countries?
I suppose it's not as fashionable.

you're an awful cunt of a human.

Good way to get people to see that you're on the righteous side.

As for those talking about the definition of ban. It's a suspended license, not a banned license when it's talking about driving "bans". Most "bans" refer to permanent things. The word "ban" has not been used in the wording of this order, either. It's just people attaching hyperbole to something to further their own agenda.

think to be able to support a politician enacting clearly racist policies means you are, at a minimum, unconcerned enough about racism and its impact to be able to decide that the underlying racism is unimportant. - Would the "unconcerned enough about racism" apply to only white people who support Trump or would it go for African Americans and ethnic minorities who also supported Trump?

These are all nations where Trump has significant business interests.

Actually, they're the nations that Obama targeted in 2011. But carry on.