Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

[lobosrul5]

FYI the Anti-Defamation League did some research on lef-wing versus right-wing terrorism:

https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/murder-and-extremism-in-the-united-states-in-2016

Over the past 10 years (2007-2016), domestic extremists of all kinds have killed at least 372 people in the United States. Of those deaths, approximately 74% were at the hands of right-wing extremists, about 24% of the victims were killed by domestic Islamic extremists, and the remainder were killed by left-wing extremists.

 

[The Norseman]

This is how you get more Trump.

I'm certain that this sounded so much more profound in your head.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm certain that this sounded so much more profound in your head.

I never said it was profound. That doesn't mean it isn't true. But it's telling that you seem to object to my response to Craig4, but Craig4's post somehow doesn't merit any attention.

 

[Segnosaur]

It's funny when Trump supporters suffer. They're all traitors so the deserve what they get.

This is how you get more Trump.

I'm certain that this sounded so much more profound in your head.

I never said it was profound. That doesn't mean it isn't true.

Doesn't mean that it is true either.

The whole "if you are mean to Trump supporters it will increase the number of Trump supporters" seems like a rather silly claim. After all, Trump supporters are already motivated to vote for him based on their racism. And they're clearly happy with the partisan divides and distrust in American society, giving their willingness to vote for a guy who is doing his best to divide society along partisan lines.

Who exactly is supposed to be convinced to switch over to Trump just because someone says mean things about Trump supporters?

Its much like the whole "deplorable" statement in 2016. I'm sure Trump supporters gladly wore the badge of deplorable as they fantasized about their abuse of minorities, but I doubt very much whether anyone said "Oh, some people are talking badly about Trump supporters. I was going to vote for Clinton but I'm instead going to vote for Trump".

 

[LSSBB]

Doesn't mean that it is true either.

The whole "if you are mean to Trump supporters it will increase the number of Trump supporters" seems like a rather silly claim. After all, Trump supporters are already motivated to vote for him based on their racism. And they're clearly happy with the partisan divides and distrust in American society, giving their willingness to vote for a guy who is doing his best to divide society along partisan lines.

Who exactly is supposed to be convinced to switch over to Trump just because someone says mean things about Trump supporters?

Its much like the whole "deplorable" statement in 2016. I'm sure Trump supporters gladly wore the badge of deplorable as they fantasized about their abuse of minorities, but I doubt very much whether anyone said "Oh, some people are talking badly about Trump supporters. I was going to vote for Clinton but I'm instead going to vote for Trump".

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...ided-voters/9EjNHVkt99b4re2VAB8ziI/story.html

There was one moment when I saw more undecided voters shift to Trump than any other, when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice. It wasn’t FBI Director James Comey, Part One or Part Two; it wasn’t Benghazi or the e-mails or Bill Clinton’s visit with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. No, the conversation shifted the most during the weekend of Sept. 9, after Clinton said, “You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables."

 

[The Norseman]

I never said it was profound. That doesn't mean it isn't true. But it's telling that you seem to object to my response to Craig4, but Craig4's post somehow doesn't merit any attention.

It isn't profound and it's not true either. But what is telling about what I choose to respond to?

ETA: What Segnosaur said.

 

[Ziggurat]

Who exactly is supposed to be convinced to switch over to Trump just because someone says mean things about Trump supporters?

Craig4 isn't simply saying mean things. He is endorsing violence. And not for the first time in this thread either. If you don't think that changes people's opinions, well, you don't understand people.

 

[Roboramma]

Craig4 isn't simply saying mean things. He is endorsing violence. And not for the first time in this thread either. If you don't think that changes people's opinions, well, you don't understand people.

Or history.

 

[KDLarsen]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...ided-voters/9EjNHVkt99b4re2VAB8ziI/story.html

Incidently a tragic case of politics being reduced to soundbites. The first sentence got played over and over and over again, but the part where Clinton spoke about people feeling left behind? That recieved very little airtime as far as I recall.

 

[Segnosaur]

Who exactly is supposed to be convinced to switch over to Trump just because someone says mean things about Trump supporters?

Its much like the whole "deplorable" statement in 2016. I'm sure Trump supporters gladly wore the badge of deplorable as they fantasized about their abuse of minorities, but I doubt very much whether anyone said "Oh, some people are talking badly about Trump supporters. I was going to vote for Clinton but I'm instead going to vote for Trump".

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...ided-voters/9EjNHVkt99b4re2VAB8ziI/story.html

There was one moment when I saw more undecided voters shift to Trump than any other, when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice. It wasn’t FBI Director James Comey, Part One or Part Two; it wasn’t Benghazi or the e-mails or Bill Clinton’s visit with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. No, the conversation shifted the most during the weekend of Sept. 9, after Clinton said, “You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables."

Yet if you look at the nationwide polling data from the election, there was a very small dip in the week or so after the 'deplorables' comment, but that was immediately followed by an increase in Clinton's support (to the point where she was more popular AFTER the 'deplorables' comment than she was before) and a corresponding drop in Trump's support. If the 'deplorables' comment did have an effect, it was short-lived.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Now, the journalist who claimed that she saw an increase in Trump support following the deplorables comment? Not sure why their data differs from polling results, but there are possiblities:
- She was using a small sample size, and/or wasn't doing a proper statistical analysis (fixating on a few 'special' cases)
- The people who claimed they were undecided or "OK" with clinton were actually Trump supporters who had hid their intentions prior to the deplorables comment

 

[Segnosaur]

Craig4 isn't simply saying mean things. He is endorsing violence.

Uhhh... where exactly does he 'endorse volence'?

He said he likes to see Trump supporters suffer. That doesn't mean that he advocates violence against them. In fact, in the previous page he specifically talks about "if its legal", which of course violence will not be.

I like to see Trump supporters suffer too. Not that I think Democrats should beat them up, but when a Trump voter ends up losing their health care thanks to Trump's actions? When a Trump voter loses their job because of Trump's tariffs? Well, that's pure schadenfreude. And I don't need to see any violence used against them to make it so.

 

[LSSBB]

Yet if you look at the nationwide polling data from the election, there was a very small dip in the week or so after the 'deplorables' comment, but that was immediately followed by an increase in Clinton's support (to the point where she was more popular AFTER the 'deplorables' comment than she was before) and a corresponding drop in Trump's support. If the 'deplorables' comment did have an effect, it was short-lived.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Now, the journalist who claimed that she saw an increase in Trump support following the deplorables comment? Not sure why their data differs from polling results, but there are possiblities:
- She was using a small sample size, and/or wasn't doing a proper statistical analysis (fixating on a few 'special' cases)
- The people who claimed they were undecided or "OK" with clinton were actually Trump supporters who had hid their intentions prior to the deplorables comment

The poll you are referring to is an overall poll, not specifically testing one aspect. If the poll asked the same question as the reporter asked of her sample, they would be comparable. In addition, the places best to test were not covered specifically by that question, which would be the swing states.

In any case, the reporter detected that it was a deciding factor for some voters, despite your claim. The impact though is unknowable without time machine and a better set of poll questions in critical areas.

 

[theprestige]

Incidently a tragic case of politics being reduced to soundbites. The first sentence got played over and over and over again, but the part where Clinton spoke about people feeling left behind? That recieved very little airtime as far as I recall.

Maybe Trump has a point about the media not doing the country any favors.

 

[LSSBB]

Maybe Trump has a point about the media not doing the country any favors.

The media is a money making organization. They reduce things to high impact statements and flashy visuals so they can get the ratings they need.

It is this same media that enabled Trump to get where he is.

Do you have any proposals for reform?

 

[Craig4]

Maybe Trump has a point about the media not doing the country any favors.

Well, he'd be the expert on not doing anything good for the country.

 

[The Big Dog]

Lesson: don’t sit on evidence that Avenatti and his client were lying through their teeth until after the vote.

Scum

 

[johnny karate]

Maybe Trump has a point about the media not doing the country any favors.

I like how you take Trump's anti-First Amendment propagandist rhetoric and try to turn it into something more nuanced and reasonable.

 

[Tero]

Lesson: don’t sit on evidence that Avenatti and his client were lying through their teeth until after the vote.

Scum

Maybe Trump has a point about the media not doing the country any favors.

Er, no. The story has to have some relation to reality. Trump says something: it has some relevance to some current issues. But it has always been given some spin. Half the time it is just a lie.

It’s not the press’s fault if they have to use facts!

 

[The Big Dog]

Er, no. The story has to have some relation to reality. Trump says something: it has some relevance to some current issues. But it has always been given some spin. Half the time it is just a lie.

It’s not the press’s fault if they have to use facts!

The story, which NBC did release weeks later, was that Avenatti suborned perjury.

Those are facts.

 

[Craig4]

Maybe Trump has a point about the media not doing the country any favors.

What are you talking about? Most if the media, calls out his lies, points out when he is wrong, occasionally humiliating Trump by bring his crimes and stupidity to light. That is pure patriotism. It's always good to damage Trump.