1. Don't want war with Russia.

I understand that. I wouldn't want that either. Simultaneously, I'm terrified for what the implications are for Ukrainian people. I also worry what this will mean in 10 years if Russia is emboldened once again to push West. Taking Crimea was too easy, and while Ukraine might be a huge and expensive undertaking, the rewards are enormous. I worry it will leave leadership with the notion that they can in fact invade and take countries, or part of them, without catastrophic consequences. Trump doesn't care about this... But what if he should?

2. Protecting kids.

This one is delicate, but I appreciate the sentiment. I tend to feel as though the most dangerous threats to our children are ever-present and most often closer to our homes than to political offices, but as a parent, I can't argue with the need to take children's health and well-being seriously and approach their care with rigorous, evidence-based care. Though I'm very much in favour of allowing people to choose how they'd like to identify (even if that means altering their hormones and physiology), I'm not convinced that this should occur before or during puberty.

For what it's worth, the data I've seen suggests that these treatment protocols and procedures are actually quite rare.

3. Illegal immigration.

This part confuses me because a democrat was responsible for the most deportations in history (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-nu...). The party is capable of it. The rhetoric was that they're soft on it, but the data suggests otherwise. I agree it needs to stop, though. Immigrants are necessary and their labour enriches the country. Same with Canada. The key is having it be safe, legal, and well-documented.

I worry a lot about the proposed deportations. That would be awful for the deported people most of all, but even for Americans. I don't see how it can be accomplished logistically, both in terms of executing on the deportations and filling enormous labour gaps.

4. Federal bureaucracy.

This is a problem here, too. The trick is eliminating it where it isn't helpful, because sometimes it really does help. Lately I wish we had governments which competed internally by trying to solve the same problems multiple ways, then selecting the solutions which work best. You'd get the right levels of bureaucracy I think, or at least better levels. What we need is to ensure we serve people efficiently without causing undue harm or external problems. I think this requires constant review and critique, which isn't possible without some degree of internal competition.

I worry that Trump is a "throw the baby out with the bath water" type of politician in this regard. I hope I'm wrong. Rules tend to exist for good reason, even if they may have been implemented poorly. Take safety at work for example. Each rule is there because someone (one or many) was injured or died that way, and that rule or guideline didn't exist at the time. It may seem inconvenient at the time but it's a hell of a lot better than your work buddy getting crushed because no one did a safety check on the forklift that morning.

5. Trust. Everyone who hates Trump likes to talk about how much he makes stuff up. But he's authentic. ... He's not controlled

I've got my tin foil hat on, but I have serious suspicions about Trump's trustworthiness and whether or not he's controlled.

I know people harp on the whole "convicted felon" thing. Frankly I don't care if someone is a felon. They should be able to vote, run for office, whatever. I've known and seen enough convicted felons throughout my life who weren't bad people to know that this title doesn't mean a specific thing about people other than that they were charged with committing a certain type of crime.

Yet Trump was convicted for his dishonesty. Not just dishonesty, but layers upon layers of it. And he lied without hesitation, shame, or remorse. It was premeditated, intentional, and purposefully hidden for a long time. He doesn't strike me as someone I can trust in the slightest. He may say what he wants to say, but he doesn't do so from a place of authenticity and trust in my opinion. So, I point to him being a convicted felon only because contextually it seems quite important.

Overall I get where you're coming from. The bottom line is that the democrats were offering a totally lacklustre platform. You cannot campaign based on "orange man is bad". You need real substance. No one is moved by more of the same, not being the bogey man, etc. They did an astoundingly bad job at capturing anyone's imagination or hopes or desires.

Remember how Obama's campaign managed to unify a bit? That's arguably what they needed to win this time around. I don't think Kamala Harris would have been a bad pick, but I get why she didn't inspire many people. I really do.

Thanks for the answers. This stuff is very helpful. I hope it doesn't seem like I was trying to tear your answers apart at all. They're all totally valid, and proof that the notion that Trump voters don't think about things is nonsense. I think people tell themselves this because they 1. live in bubbles 2. lack imagination and 3. lack a lot of compassion for their country mates. I think this goes both ways on the political spectrum, but it somewhat ironic on the blue side. The democrats need a radical shift in how they understand and care about the people who supported Trump.

It's so strange because in my lifetime, they offered a platform that I think would have captured those same voters. And I think the party was objectively better back then. They've fallen pretty far, clearly. Canada has similar parties, insanely disconnected from the people they once resonated with. Things are going to shake up here too, I think.