Cont: President Trump: Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Emily's Cat said:
Genuine Question here.

Early on, there was a consistently higher level of support for Clinton than for Trump. Trump won the election.

Did some of Clinton's early supporters change their views throughout the election campaign? If so, why are Clinton's supporters subject to change but Trump's are not?

If they did not, then were early polls materially biased?

If it isn't possible for either Clinton's nor Trump's supporters to change their views during the campaign... then what's the point of the campaign in the first place?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, good question. More people polled said they'd vote for her and in the end more people did.

I can see how that might be confusing.
 
elemental said:
Hmmm, good question. More people polled said they'd vote for her and in the end more people did.

I can see how that might be confusing.
Click to expand...

That's a tad too cute.

Time warp back to the weeks before the election. Trump had virtually NO path to an Electoral College win.

Something changed - as Emily's Cat said, either people changed their minds or the polls the projections were based on were either biased or flawed.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
That's a tad too cute.

Time warp back to the weeks before the election. Trump had virtually NO path to an Electoral College win.

Something changed - as Emily's Cat said, either people changed their minds or the polls the projections were based on were either biased or flawed.
Click to expand...

Comey's letter was certainly a factor. Whether it was the only one or the biggest one will be debated for years.
 
wareyin said:
Those who supported Trump before the election and appear optimistic now are those who claim not to trust "fake news" like CNN, and get all of their political news from Facebook memes spread by other Trump supporters.
Click to expand...
It's a common feature of cults that all outside sources of information are presented as not only in error but actively hostile. Bannon has been doing that explicitly, deliberately and apparently very successfully. The alt-right is a cult.
 
wareyin said:
Right, insulting those who supported Trump cost Clinton the election, so she should have used the same language about her own supporters and she would have...lost worse?

There really is no pleasing some people, is there?
Click to expand...

We're really talking at cross purposes here.

Imagine it's a completely different topic.

Let's say it's abortion rights. Let's say there's a study that someone references, and they come to you and say "70% of men are pro-life" and then says that those men are despicable horrible people because they want to keep women down.

I can see that argument. I can see how they get to that from where they started. It's a bit extreme, and I'd still be pretty angry about the chosen language and the implied othering... but I can see the path.

Now... Let's say you go pull up that study and look at it... and it turns out that 55% of women were also pro-life. Sure, more men than women were pro-life, but there's still a pretty substantial chunk of women with that view.

Does that change your opinion of the validity of the argument made? Does it influence how much credibility that you give to specifically calling out only men as being despicable? Wouldn't that same logic apply to the women that are pro-life?

Wouldn't it bother you that the information is being cherry-picked to support an agenda that casts only one side as being bad people, when the same view is held by a not-insignificant chunk of the other side as well?

Would it bother you if a sizable chunk of people with whom you interact continued to say that men are despicable in general because of that study, and furthermore to say that the claim of 70% is being generous - that more than that are actually despicable?
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
We're really talking at cross purposes here.

Imagine it's a completely different topic.

Let's say it's abortion rights. Let's say there's a study that someone references, and they come to you and say "70% of men are pro-life" and then says that those men are despicable horrible people because they want to keep women down.

I can see that argument. I can see how they get to that from where they started. It's a bit extreme, and I'd still be pretty angry about the chosen language and the implied othering... but I can see the path.

Now... Let's say you go pull up that study and look at it... and it turns out that 55% of women were also pro-life. Sure, more men than women were pro-life, but there's still a pretty substantial chunk of women with that view.

Does that change your opinion of the validity of the argument made? Does it influence how much credibility that you give to specifically calling out only men as being despicable? Wouldn't that same logic apply to the women that are pro-life?

Wouldn't it bother you that the information is being cherry-picked to support an agenda that casts only one side as being bad people, when the same view is held by a not-insignificant chunk of the other side as well?

Would it bother you if a sizable chunk of people with whom you interact continued to say that men are despicable in general because of that study, and furthermore to say that the claim of 70% is being generous - that more than that are actually despicable?
Click to expand...

Let's make your hypothetical a better representation. Say the person told me that 50% of pro-life people have rigid, sexist attitudes towards women, but we should reach out to the other 50% because we may change their mind. Should I demand to see a study that also shows that some percentage of pro-choice people are also sexist while complaining about the person calling people with really sexist attitudes nasty names?
 
wareyin said:
Let's make your hypothetical a better representation. Say the person told me that 50% of pro-life people have rigid, sexist attitudes towards women, but we should reach out to the other 50% because we may change their mind. Should I demand to see a study that also shows that some percentage of pro-choice people are also sexist while complaining about the person calling people with really sexist attitudes nasty names?
Click to expand...

Yeah, your "better representation" is pretty good at sidestepping that whole "deplorable" and "irredeemable" bit. :rolleyes:

Let me retry this with your immaterial add-ons:

Let's say it's abortion rights. Let's say there's a study that someone references, and they come to you and say "70% of men are pro-life" and then says that some of those men are despicable horrible people because they want to keep women down. Then they say "But we should try to reach out to the other the ones who aren't despicable horrible people."

I can see that argument. I can see how they get to that from where they started. It's a bit extreme, and I'd still be pretty angry about the chosen language and the implied othering... but I can see the path.

Now... Let's say you go pull up that study and look at it... and it turns out that 55% of women were also pro-life. Sure, more men than women were pro-life, but there's still a pretty substantial chunk of women with that view.

Given that the classification of "some men" as despicable horrible people who want to keep women down is predicated on them identifying as pro-life in that study...

Does that change your opinion of the validity of the argument made? Does it influence how much credibility that you give to specifically calling out only men as being despicable? Wouldn't that same logic apply to the women that are pro-life?

Wouldn't it bother you that the information is being cherry-picked to support an agenda that casts only one side as being bad people, when the same view is held by a not-insignificant chunk of the other side as well?

Would it bother you if a sizable chunk of people with whom you interact continued to say that men are despicable in general because of that study, and furthermore to say that the claim of 70% is being generous - that more than that are actually despicable?

It would be nice to have an actual response to the actual questions that I actually asked.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ETA: Let me make this even clearer.

"50% of THOSE CHERRIES are bad cherries, and SOME OF THOSE 50% are so bad that we shouldn't even talk to them, they can't be reached, they're completely horrible and are NO TRUE SCOTSMEN."

Never mind that 33% of MY CHERRIES are the same kind of cherries (which makes them bad). We'll just pretend that all of MY CHERRIES are perfect SCOTSMEN.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Actually, let me make this even more super clear:

I don't expect Clinton not to make the comment. I do expect YOU to be able to recognize the cherry picking and poor logic involved as well as the perceived impact of her statement. As a self-professed skeptic, I expect YOU to NOT rationalize it away and pretend it was a perfectly acceptable and reasonable thing for her to say.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Yeah, your "better representation" is pretty good at sidestepping that whole "deplorable" and "irredeemable" bit. :rolleyes:

Let me retry this with your immaterial add-ons:

Let's say it's abortion rights. Let's say there's a study that someone references, and they come to you and say "70% of men are pro-life" and then says that some of those men are despicable horrible people because they want to keep women down. Then they say "But we should try to reach out to the other the ones who aren't despicable horrible people."

I can see that argument. I can see how they get to that from where they started. It's a bit extreme, and I'd still be pretty angry about the chosen language and the implied othering... but I can see the path.

Now... Let's say you go pull up that study and look at it... and it turns out that 55% of women were also pro-life. Sure, more men than women were pro-life, but there's still a pretty substantial chunk of women with that view.

Given that the classification of "some men" as despicable horrible people who want to keep women down is predicated on them identifying as pro-life in that study...

Does that change your opinion of the validity of the argument made? Does it influence how much credibility that you give to specifically calling out only men as being despicable? Wouldn't that same logic apply to the women that are pro-life?

Wouldn't it bother you that the information is being cherry-picked to support an agenda that casts only one side as being bad people, when the same view is held by a not-insignificant chunk of the other side as well?

Would it bother you if a sizable chunk of people with whom you interact continued to say that men are despicable in general because of that study, and furthermore to say that the claim of 70% is being generous - that more than that are actually despicable?

It would be nice to have an actual response to the actual questions that I actually asked.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ETA: Let me make this even clearer.

"50% of THOSE CHERRIES are bad cherries, and SOME OF THOSE 50% are so bad that we shouldn't even talk to them, they can't be reached, they're completely horrible and are NO TRUE SCOTSMEN."

Never mind that 33% of MY CHERRIES are the same kind of cherries (which makes them bad). We'll just pretend that all of MY CHERRIES are perfect SCOTSMEN.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Actually, let me make this even more super clear:

I don't expect Clinton not to make the comment. I do expect YOU to be able to recognize the cherry picking and poor logic involved as well as the perceived impact of her statement. As a self-professed skeptic, I expect YOU to NOT rationalize it away and pretend it was a perfectly acceptable and reasonable thing for her to say.
Click to expand...

Yeah, with this type of comment, I think any politician can feel quite safe ignoring your advice on how to win an election.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Probably. But I'm pretty sure the blame will not fall on Trump. Motivated reasoning and all that.
Click to expand...

Yes I'm sure the ex-coal miner with no healthcare will find a way to avoid blaming Trump. As the years roll by, and the full scope of the disaster that was president Trump becomes clear, guys like the coal miner will probably acquire status in the family and around town as, "Ole Crazy Roy. Man, don't get him started!"

  • Grandpa Roy: "I would have gotten my damn job back too if it wasn't for them damned liberals in Washington. Man they tied Trump's hands!"
  • Granddaughter: "But grandpa, most people think Donald Trump was a very insincere man. Most people say..."
  • Grandpa Roy: "Don't give a damn what they say! That man tried his hardest, he knew what to do. Them liberals wouldn't let him do nothing."

:(
 
newyorkguy said:
Yes I'm sure the ex-coal miner with no healthcare will find a way to avoid blaming Trump. As the years roll by, and the full scope of the disaster that was president Trump becomes clear, guys like the coal miner will probably acquire status in the family and around town as, "Ole Crazy Roy. Man, don't get him started!"
Click to expand...
Don't even mention the weather.

"Climate change, pah! Loadacrap! Al Gore can kiss my lily-white tush!" and so ad infinitum.

There has been a boost for the coal industry, with the relaxation by Congress of pollution controls, but that's to enable more mountaintop-removal - the procedure which cost all those miners' jobs in the first place. Great for the industry's owners, not for the workers (or ex-workers).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom