No...you get ostracized or cancelled in many social circles for indicating that you might support Trump or Republican policies. Even mild ostracization would make people hesitate to voice their opinions, never mind the level it is currently.
This is, largely, because a lot of republicans have a difficult time expressing their views without using tools like racism and misogyny.
Just take a look at the Trump rallies. Even if you agree with 100% of Trump's policies, look at how he talks about women. Could you repeat what he says in the workplace? No, you'd get fired. Not for being republican, but for sexual harassment.
If you were able to support anti-immigration policies without calling entire classes of people "garbage", then maybe people wouldn't get mad at you. But for a lot of republicans, they just can't do that. They don't know how to word their policy support without saying something incredibly offensive.
Or, for example, it's one thing if you're pro-life. But a lot of republicans will use words like "slut" and "whore", and even President Trump wants to "punish women". Again, this just isn't acceptable speech in most social situations.
Until your average republican and, hell, our president, figure out how to address these topics without being offensive, people will get offended.
Of course she doesn't. But, can she express that without saying it in a way that says "I hate immigrants"?
This is what I'm pointing out. Having republican beliefs is fine. Can republicans voice those beliefs without bigotry? Often no. For Trump, certainly not. For many, they can't either.
If you just say "Trump addresses immigrant better", then okay. If you say "they're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats, we have to clean up our country" then... yeah you're getting pulled into HR.
> If you say "they're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats, we have to clean up our country" then... yeah you're getting pulled into HR.
Trump was just repeating the same thing that many other people heard, a resident at a town council meeting in Springfield, Ohio claimed that some group of migrants there had eaten someone's pets.
Was it true? Who knows? People tend to repeat a lot of things they hear but haven't verified themselves. For example in that same debate, David Muir falsely repeated the lie that crime was down nationally. Do we take David Muir to HR?
That kind of obvious logical inconsistency, coupled with the assumption of moral authority (which for whatever reason seems to be the subtext for so many of these conversations), rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
So then Trump didn't do his own research and will pretty much just believe anything? Wow, it sounds like you think Trump is an idiot.
I don't understand this line of thinking from conservatives. When Trump is criticized on the things he himself has said people will argue we shouldn't listen to Trump, because he is stupid and he lies. So he's stupid and he lies... and yet you support him?
Either he is a strong leader, in which case we should take what he says at face value, or he is a fraudster, in which case we should expect misinformation. You can't have both. Talking down about the person you support reflects very poorly on you.
> David Muir falsely repeated the lie that crime was down nationally
Crime IS down nationally.
And you understand this isn't the type of thing that would get you fired from a job?
While people on the left may often be wrong, they aren't wrong in a way that can be interpreted as racism, sexism, or homophobia. This won't get you sent to HR - and that's the difference.
Conservatives have a really hard time supporting their position without using tools which are unacceptable in professional environment. If you don't support immigration, then great! Now defend that without racist rhetoric. Trump can't do it, so if that's your role model then you better find someone else.
the men in your life are dishonest with you. You will never know what people really think (and no one will be able to explain why to you because you won’t hear them)
I absolutely hear them, but they're incapable of voicing their beliefs without bigotry.
You can say, for example, that there are challenges to gender-neutral bathrooms. Okay that's fine. You can't say "those dirty pervy <slurs> are molesting our little girls!". Do you see how that's now bigotry?
How many republicans are able to do 1 without ever touching 2? Very, very few. Certainly Trump can't, and Cruz can't either. If those are your role models then it's no wonder you can't express your beliefs.
In liberal strongholds (like SF, where I live), many conservatives will hide their political views for fear of social alienation. I've experienced this directly, when someone I'd recently met sort of sheepishly/obliquely brought up that they supported Trump. That fear is warranted: I really had less interest in developing a closer friendship with that person after learning that. It was especially jarring to me that this person was a non-white woman, and I just cannot understand how someone can support someone whose rhetoric demeans her on two axes.
I expect the same happens in conservative strongholds too, with liberals self-censoring. I know I wouldn't be comfortable openly discussing my (leftist) political views in, say, suburban Texas.
I really think this conventional wisdom is drastically overblown. Especially in places like this, which are San Francisco liberal adjacent.
Yes, it is not surprising that people who are in the minority in a place with a strong majority viewpoint are less excited to rock the boat. But very few places are like San Francisco.