Trump voters don’t even believe themselves

Author: Double_R ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 21
  • Double_R
    Double_R avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 138
    1
    2
    3
    Double_R avatar
    Double_R
    In a new Suffolk University/USA TODAY poll 73% of Trump voters say they believe the election was stolen. The same poll also found that 58% of those same voters believe January 6th was "mostly an antifa-inspired attack that only involved a few Trump supporters."

    Let’s just assume the first question as our premise... the election was stolen and the rightful president whom the people voted to represent them will be kicked out of the Oval Office by hijacker’s of our federal government. Congress by certifying Biden would then be complicit in this. What should the people do? Head to the polls and vote out the same people who are manipulating the vote totals?

    If this were true the only means left would be to take power back by force, which is exactly what Jan 6th was about. If Trump voters really believe the election was stolen they wouldn’t need to dissociate themselves with the attacks by absurdly blaming it on antifa.

    I think this poll speaks to the logic pretzels many of Trump’s voters are twisting themselves in to hold onto their views. It’s one thing to argue with someone who doesn’t believe widely accepted facts about the world, it’s another to argue with someone who doesn’t even believe facts they themselves profess to believe.

    Curious to know what any Trump voters think about this.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,790
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    If one didn't want to create an army of paranoid misinformed people, maybe Americans shouldn't have supported without question the Alinskyesque mockingbird deep state media gaslighting with the Russia crap for 4 years just to place people they like to listen to in positions of tyrannical power.

    The misinformation war has just begun now that it is acceptable to equate fact with opinions.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,790
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    Questioning the government is now labeled vigorously by the elite oligarchs as misinformation. We are already in a tyrannical state.
  • Double_R
    Double_R avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 138
    1
    2
    3
    Double_R avatar
    Double_R
    --> @Greyparrot
    The misinformation war has just begun now that it is acceptable to equate fact with opinions.
    I’m pretty sure the whole point to this thread is that it is not.

    Do you believe Biden was chosen by the electorate?

    If not, then what is your view of the Capitol attack?
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,790
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Double_R
    Do you believe Biden was chosen by the electorate?
    I believe the Washington DC Oligarchy believes he was elected legitimately without question.

    If not, then what is your view of the Capitol attack?
    It was about as violent of an uprising against the government as Tank Man was getting rolled under the treads of a Chinese tank in Tiananmen Square. 

    The outcomes of both events are the same. A cowed populace afraid to question the government and total authoritative dominance.
  • Double_R
    Double_R avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 138
    1
    2
    3
    Double_R avatar
    Double_R
    --> @Greyparrot
    I believe the Washington DC Oligarchy believes he was elected legitimately without question.
    You sound like a politician. I didn’t ask what the Washington DC oligarchy believes, I asked what you believe. Care to provide any thoughts?

    The outcomes of both events are the same. A cowed populace afraid to question the government and total authoritative dominance.
    I didn’t ask about the outcome, I asked what you thought about them.

     Any reason you are avoiding giving us your opinion?
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,790
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Double_R
     Any reason you are avoiding giving us your opinion?
    My opinion is irrelevant since questioning the outcome of the election isn't an option. It's considered hate speech.

    A rational person in a free society would probably believe the election was legit. Not in this society.
  • Double_R
    Double_R avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 138
    1
    2
    3
    Double_R avatar
    Double_R
    --> @Greyparrot
    My opinion is irrelevant since questioning the outcome of the election isn't an option.
    This is a debate site. The whole point is to share your opinion.

    A rational person in a free society would probably believe the election was legit. Not in this society.
    How is this not a free society? Enlighten me.
  • Bringerofrain
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 469
    2
    4
    7
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Bringerofrain
    Why is it hypocritical to think that both an act should have happened and also after that action is taken not be personally responsible for it. 

    Let me get this straight. I don't find it despicable that Trump was saying the election was stolen. I have not seen the same classified documents as him. I am not sure what classified documents CNN saw where they felt justified to call him a liar. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't.

    However the following two messages are ridiculous and seem contradictions.

    Trump "the election was stolen"

    Americans believing their president and thinking that democracy should win out then storm the capital to encourage law makers to uphold the democratic decision to elect Trump. (Based on Trump saying the election was stolen.

    Trump " This attack on the capital was disgusting and I disavow those people"

    He told people the election was stolen and when the people respond by trying to fight off the insurgents, the president is like . "yo wtf is this". 

    His actions are just as disgusting as the politicians hiding instead of coming out to have a dialogue. If they are supposed to be for the people they shouldn't mind confronting the mob with logic and dialogue. They certainly should not allow their secret service agents to shoot random protestors or threaten them with guns




  • Double_R
    Double_R avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 138
    1
    2
    3
    Double_R avatar
    Double_R
    --> @Bringerofrain
    I don't find it despicable that Trump was saying the election was stolen. I have not seen the same classified documents as him. I am not sure what classified documents CNN saw where they felt justified to call him a liar. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't.
    I’m taking this as your genuine position, correct me if I am mistaken.

    Agnosticism on this issue amounts to willful blindness. The question isn’t whether it did or did not happen beyond a shadow of a doubt, it’s whether the allegation that it did happen is reasonable. It’s not. Not only is there no evidence of it but despite one party in this country engaging in a nationwide effort to find it they could only come up with easily verifiably false allegations of dead people voting, blatant lies about voter machines, and hundreds of affidavits claiming to have seen something that looked suspicious.

    The default position is that our fellow citizens acted lawfully, especially when there is a whole system of checks to ensure this be the case. If there’s no valid argument that the law was broken in any significant example never mind some nationwide conspiracy, then calling the person who repeatedly alleges it a liar is perfectly reasonable.

    I found the rest of your post spot on though.
  • Bringerofrain
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 469
    2
    4
    7
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Bringerofrain
    --> @Double_R
    The default position is that our fellow citizens acted lawfully, especially when there is a whole system of checks to ensure this be the case
    Yeah I tend to be distrusting of everyone LOL. I have heard the arguments about "trust but verify" . I may he wrong here but I prefer "distrust and verify and then even distrust that"

    I admit it is probably not a healthy trait.

    Certain things bother me though. Like one district was asked to retain records of votes on the machines but destroyed them anyway. The court agreed that it was okay. I just can't imagine a single good reason to tell somebody that erasing digital records is okay if there is even a one in a million chance there is something on them. 

    It also seems like the actual voting process went smoother in suburban areas than urban areas. Even if that is not fishy, it is still unfair to people voting in big cities. 

    I am old enough to remember the tight election between bush and gore in 2000. Every democrat alleged election fraud. I was one of them, I know. Then it was conservatives urging us to trust the process unless proof of fraud was found and that election had just as many funny little things occurring as the 2020 one. 


    Wouldn't a complete distrust of everyone, allow a more critical eye on the process and make it that much harder for any fraud to happen? It seems like complete distrust, even if it is not well earned has the advantage of allowing fewer errors to occur. 



  • Double_R
    Double_R avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 138
    1
    2
    3
    Double_R avatar
    Double_R
    --> @Bringerofrain
    There’s no question that there was fraud and let’s just say bending of the rules out there, but that’s true of every election and will always be. A critical eye is definitely healthy, alleging a nationwide conspiracy to install the loser in office is an entirely different thing. We can’t haves discussion about the former until we definitively move on from the latter.

    The voting process does certainly seem to go smoother in rural and suburban areas, that is a major part of the problem but all that shows is that left wing politicians are at a disadvantage. One guy in Atlanta live streamed his wait on line, took him 12 hours. I’ve never seen that in the suburbs.

    I wasn’t paying attention back in 2000, but it seems to me that although both sides complain about illegitimacy, they’re on completely different grounds. The right alleges that the left does not follow the law, the left alleges that the laws themselves are the problem. These are not the same thing. I’m sure there may have been some on the left in 2000 claiming actual fraud but it was nothing like today.
  • Bringerofrain
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 469
    2
    4
    7
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Bringerofrain
    --> @Double_R
    Nobody is alleging that it was a conspiracy by left-wing voters lol. It would obviously be a few well placed individuals. 

    Just a reminder of what left wingers alleged about the election in 2000. 

    1. The voting machines were rigged.
    2. The supreme court was in the winner's back pocket
    3. There were active conspiracies by street cops to close roads and make it more difficult to get to voting stations.
    4. The media was complicit in stealing the elections.

    It's almost the exact same claims. Only 9\11 made everyone forget and get behind the president. I wonder what Biden's 9/11 will be to bring the country together. 


    These claims of election manipulation was true in both cases. Even in 2016 the whole russian conspiracy to rig voting machines by the left was probably true. Americans are the only ones naive enough to believe they live in an actual democracy





  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 312
    Forum posts: 9,354
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @Bringerofrain
    Russians were involved with Trump getting elected, it's an objectively proven fact but how they went about doing it was less physical and more psychological. While they may have used secret agents and manipulated some things behind the scenes, it's more likely and definitely proven that their primary (if not sole) line of attack was to combine forces with Wikileaks and use fake social media accounts along with Julian Assange re-attacking Clinton just a few months before the election so that everything the average American citizen came across online made them feel Clinton was at best a lesser evil and at worst the devil in human form. They also went about helping Trump launch a subtle attack on people's psychological willingness to vote Clinton but altering the type of targeted political ads that appeared to different demographics and Facebook profiles. There were even physical letters sent to homes, not just social media ads.

    There were essentially four categories:

    1. Likes Trump but doesn't mind Clinton (especially if Caucasian)
    2. Doesn't care about either (especially if African American)
    3. Dislikes Trump with a passion but is unsure about Clinton (especially if African American)
    4. Loves Clinton but sees some benefit in Trump.
    All four were targeted were targeted with a separate strategy of personalised letters, ads etc. This is absolutely proven and was only discovered recently prior to this 2020 Election in fact (because of people themselves revealing what was sent and being curious about it as well as Facebook itself revealing something to do with it when it got sued itself for spying on people and selling the data).

  • FLRW
    FLRW avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 448
    2
    2
    5
    FLRW avatar
    FLRW
    --> @RationalMadman

    Well stated.
  • Bringerofrain
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 469
    2
    4
    7
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Bringerofrain
    --> @RationalMadman
    I'm aware those techniques were used, I just think it was trump's people acting alone. I also agree that foreign countries do attempt to propagandize american citizens to sway elections in a beneficial way to them. 

    For example China coincidentally benefits greatly by Biden being elected and coincidentally had a virus that came from them shut down the old way of voting and allowed mail in voting which benefits the party that the less politically aware person's vote for.


    I pretty much agree with everything you said, except for thinking russia was consulted by Trump to use ads that suppressed votes. I think the Trump team did that on their own. 

    I don't have an opinion on whether Russians hacked election equipment. I think there is no evidence that Russians hacked the election like most of my democrat colleagues believe, but they certainly ran a propaganda campaign to get Trump elected. 

  • Double_R
    Double_R avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 138
    1
    2
    3
    Double_R avatar
    Double_R
    --> @Bringerofrain
    Just a reminder of what left wingers alleged about the election in 2000. 

    1. The voting machines were rigged.
    2. The supreme court was in the winner's back pocket
    3. There were active conspiracies by street cops to close roads and make it more difficult to get to voting stations.
    4. The media was complicit in stealing the elections.
    They weren’t using voting machines in 2000. The issue was the hanging chads, and that was certainly legitimate.

    The Supreme Court stopped a recount in progress to hand Bush the win. I’m not saying they were in his back pocket, but the argument is not on the level of what’s going on today.

    The other two sound nuts, but I doubt they were even considered widespread by 2000’s standards.

    Americans are the only ones naive enough to believe they live in an actual democracy
    Please explain.
  • Bringerofrain
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 469
    2
    4
    7
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Bringerofrain
    --> @Double_R
    I actually got those ideals from Michael Moore. The most listened to liberal academic. 

    As far as democracy being a myth, I mean there is a lot of corruption at the upper echelons of society and that social engineering has a lot to do with who wins elections
  • Bringerofrain
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 469
    2
    4
    7
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Bringerofrain
    Michael Moore mentioned all those things in farenheit 9/11. It was a pretty good movie tbh
  • coal
    coal avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,058
    3
    3
    5
    coal avatar
    coal
    --> @Double_R
    "Stolen" is ambiguous and those poll questions are poorly worded. It would be hard to extrapolate or generalize from responses, as a result.  

    But your post sort of touches upon the bigger issue, which is the extent to which disinformation forms the bedrock of the Trump base's political understanding.  Deranged conspiracy theories and a paranoia that approaches levels of psychosis has led certain low-information voters to believe demonstrably false and objectively stupid things.  

    And we all know what they are.  I need not list them here. 

    It's possible that the structure and mechanics of how we communicate have contributed to this to some degree (though I am not sure how precisely that could be measured).  Twitter, for example, seems to be a snake's den of misinformation and collective insanity.  And politics seem to be downstream from Twitter.  So there may be some kind of link there.

    But this phenomena is not unique to the populist/movement right wing, either.  The difference is that right wing conspiracy theories react to left wing conspiracy theories.  Right wing conspiracy theories oppose the sociopolitical and sociocutlural changes that left wing conspiracy theories drive.

    There's no shortage of stupid beliefs on the so called "progressive left," either.  And in fact, there are groups that appear somewhat comparable at varying levels of analysis (particularly with respect to race, gender and sexuality).   Here, too, deranged conspiracy theories and a paranoia that approaches levels of psychosis has led certain low-information voters to believe demonstrably false and objectively stupid things.

    The difference is that whereas Q Anon becomes a subject that the media report on as a "conspiracy theory," the media humor most of the more insane things that the progressive left believe without anything even vaguely resembling an evidentiary basis.  Those conspiracy theories include, for example, concepts such as the "wage gap" and "systemic racism."  

    The wage gap conspiracy theory basically claims that women are systematically discriminated against in "the workplace" (the labor market) because of their gender.  As evidence of this, they cite misleading figures that have been manipulated into suggesting that women earn about 70 cents or so on the dollar of every man.  Further, so called progressives emphasize the "lack of representation" of women among fortune 500 companies, and the like.  As if the question of "why are there so few female CEOs of fortune 500 companies?" could be explained by "the patriarchy."  

    In reality, once you control for individual choices to do things like having children, and the impact that such a choice has on the net life earnings of women, generally; there is no difference.  Further, the earning figures in basically every Western country tend to suggest that millennial women out-earn millennial men by at least 20 - 35 percent.  And the trend is looking up in that respect, meaning that once you evaluate the relative earning of men and women (even not considering the choice to have children that some women make) women still out-earn men, within certain age groups and will continue to out-pace them for the foreseeable future.   This should be unsurprising, given that women have consistently achieved higher levels of educational attainment than men in secondary and post-secondary education for about a decade now.   

    But somehow the patriarchy is keeping women down?  This is stupid.

    Conspiracy theories of systemic racism are more pernicious, though.  This conspiracy theory basically claims that non-majority groups are discriminated against in "the society" and its levels and iterations based on their race and is so pervasive that it has all but become common knowledge among the media and certain "mainline" groups, like center to progressive left.  As evidence of this, they cite misleading figures that suggest that non-congruent outcomes among particular (and largely non-representative) samples of non-majority ethnic groups have it worse than equally non-representative samples of majority ethnic groups.  

    In reality, to the extent that any such differences appear in the data (and they do in certain aspects, like criminal sentencing for example); there is essentially no evidence that could even be misinterpreted to support the proposition that race (or ethnicity) explains these differences, much less causes them.  Further, once you broaden the scope of whatever you're looking at (basically no matter what it is that you're focusing on), at least before 2020 things tended to be looking better compared to, for example, criminal sentencing disparities in the 1930s-1970s.  This should be unsurprising, given that as a society racism is regarded as intolerable by basically everyone with any sense, and the cultural norms associated with discriminating based on race have shifted.

    Further, if you wanted to look at other factors beyond things like criminal sentencing like black economic advancement, and you compared the relative change in the economic status of black Americans after the end of the civil war to, say, about the Johnson administration, it would be pretty clear that things were definitely looking up.  Despite widespread cultural and structural barriers (most of which have since been removed), black Americans profoundly improved their position up until that time.  But after 30 years of the welfare-state's expansion and progressive social reforms, and---above all---liberal criminal justice reforms supported by people like Joe Biden (e.g., 94 crime bill) the rate of improvement took a turn for the worse. If the "systemic racism" conspiracy theory was true, then the society should have been more racist after Johnson was elected, and the society's collective racism should have profoundly increased thereafter (if we are going to explain that post-Great Society downward trend by "systemic racism").   There are no data that could even be misinterpreted to support that position. 

    Despite this, the "systemic racism" conspiracy theory is basically understood as axiomatically true.   But it sure looks to me like it's a way for woke (and often white) leftists to exploit black people for their own purposes, even though the most significant collective setbacks to black people generally have been visited upon them by people like Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, in the 1990s.  

    I am not saying that there were never systemic issues that disproportionately adversely affected black people, if there was any question.  Three strikes laws absolutely did, drug sentencing practices relevant to crack certainly did and so called crime reform at the behest of the 1990s democrats did more damage than anything else.  But to call these evidence of systemic racism is stupid and myopic.  What it suggests is that whenever the government tries to implement policies like this, it makes things far worse than better.  Also, sentencing disparities increased after the 94 crime bill.   So if the systemic racism theory is true, then democrats bear the responsibility for shaping the current system and its racism for the most part.   But if it's not true, then maybe we need to look a bit deeper to understand what is happening rather than repeating stupid things people don't understand on Twitter like AOC. 

    The bigger question is why do people believe stupid things for which there is no evidence?  It seems to me like we have lost the ability to think critically, in favor of reflexive reaction.  So like whenever anyone suggests that there is no gender gap, this makes them a sexist.  Or whenever anyone suggests that so called systemic racism is more of a political myth used to exploit black people rather than a useful theory through which to understand current social problems, they are automatically a racist.  

    There are a lot of people that just don't buy that.  There are also a lot of people who resent being called a sexist or a racist for having opinions that diverge from whatever woke leftists think is acceptable, but aren't intellectually sophisticated enough to explain why they think the leftist woke approach is acceptable.  And when the means by which knowledge is produced is coming up with this garbage, it's the credibility of those institutions behind that process, which is lost. 

    If the goal was to set up a regime of truth that divided the body politic into warring against itself, then the leftist progressives have done an excellent job.  Self-styled experts claim sole and exclusive dominion on not only "what the truth is" but also on "the means by which that which is true can be known."  They define what the norm/standard is, and to the extent anyone disagrees they are not only rebuking the current political milieu but the purportedly intellectual foundation upon which that milieu is predicated and the institutions that set up those conditions in the first instance. 

    Is it any wonder, then, that the low-information right wing have all but totally rejected basically all forms of mainline institutions and retreated into belief in conspiracy theories like Q-anon?  When the alternative is to be labeled a white supremacist, racist and sexist bigot?  It shouldn't be.  Belief in this kind of thing is an act of misguided resistance to a cultural cancer that they intuitively understand is wrong, and to which they will not submit.  That's a big part of why Trump was elected, and why someone worse is more likely than not to be the 2024 Republican nominee.  


  • Double_R
    Double_R avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 138
    1
    2
    3
    Double_R avatar
    Double_R
    --> @coal
    You have a lot of good points, but I take issue with your insinuation that the left and the right are just two sides of the same coin when it comes to their belief in conspiracy theories.

    The right has been taken over by a belief that Trump really did win the 2020 election but it was stolen by democrats who didn’t bother to retain their own seats in the House or pull a few more in the senate. The left has been taken over by a belief that women and minorities are still fighting back against discrimination. These are not remotely similar.

    You also seem to misunderstand what people are talking about when using the term “systemic racism”. The simplest way to explain it is the fact that black people as a community are at the bottom of our society when it comes to any wealth metric is not a random result, it’s the result of hundreds of years of policies and practices within the US.

    College legacies are a perfect example. One study I read showed that you were twice as likely to get accepted into an Ivy League school if your parents attended the same school. But go back to the 50’s and many of these schools didn’t allow black people, some as recent as the 70’s, so which race would you predict would be more prominent with regards to college admissions today? It’s not random.

    It’s not that white people are conspiring against black people or other minorities, even if that is some of it. It’s that black people as a community have been disadvantaged. We live in a capitalistic society where wealth begets wealth, so giving one group a head start will always lead to that group maintaining control for a very long time to come.