## Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

d0rkyd00d wrote:Hey Urwrong,

I saw the original video on this. It was actually a disgruntled ex-lover who was attempting to murder his ex.

Somebody took the video and put that headline on to mislead. Looks like it's working.

This is what worries me about the "sources" people use to support their positions on this forum.

If you saw the original video then I'll leave it at that, and trust you on the matter. Consider it spiked then, until I learn anything different.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 4415
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

Covid is a cult, anyone, including doctors and scientists who criticize any part of the official narrative get censored by big tech, and possibly doxed and harassed too.
The banks, their employers and government may turn against them too.
Cults aren't always these little fringe things, sometimes they take over the whole country, or the whole world, like fascism, Nazism and Marxism.
The MSM calls anyone, including the tens of thousands of doctors and scientists who've publicly criticized the official narrative and condemned the lockdowns, kooks.
That is not democratic, even if big tech and the MSM are private entities (government has given billions of dollars to them), and have a legal right to censor and ridicule anyone they want, morally they shouldn't.
Morally the public has every right to be very skeptical and critical of any claims politicians and technocrats make.
It's anti-democratic to say, you must accept this national emergency and the powers it gives us without question, that alone is a dead giveaway they have something to hide (when don't they?).
The establishment are corporatists, social control freaks and warhawks, it's very naïve to place much if any trust in these people.
Last edited by Gloominary on Wed Dec 23, 2020 10:49 am, edited 2 times in total.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 3305
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

phoneutria wrote:thqt's all i'm tryna say sil
you could have deleted all that
and kept that last sentenxe

And lose all the context and nuance, just to skip to the part that, by itself, would seem only to agree with you?

Just because there is ideology on both sides of your fence, quality and quantity make all the difference.
By definition, conservative ideology is the status quo that the conservative wishes to conserve. This doesn't require any critique of ideology, because to try and defend the current ideology requires only regurgitation of this ideology.
Progressive ideology requires a critique of ideology as its starting point, and only improves with self-awareness of the ideology required to justify critiquing ideology.
Conservative ideology improves with self-awareness of the ideology that they wish to conserve.

A lack of this self-awareness is what characterises the sheep, but with a clear difference between mere regurgitation that needs no critique of ideology, versus the act of critiquing ideology.
Both express ideology, as you say, but that doesn't make them the same.
With self-awareness, the conservative needs only critique their own ideology, where the progressive needs critique of both progressive and conservative ideology. Again, the philosophical requirements are greater for the progressive.
Of course it's possible for conservatives to also critique both even though they don't have to, but that's like gold dust. This forum, albeit only anecdotal as a case study, is full of conservatives merely regurgitating ideology, and telling progressives what their ideology is, based on the ideology of the status quo, on the unquestioned assumption that it's correct. As is plainly apparent to the self-aware progressive, they are way off - but since this same degree of awareness isn't necessary and almost never sought by the conservative, there is no way for the progressive to communicate this.

The primary concern of the conservative is to apologise for Conservativism by emphasising all its benefits. The very act of exposing its flaws is already a personal afront, because ideology is personalised - and the degree to which this is met by brief emotional responses is a sure sign of the degree to which a sheeplike conservative is uncritical of ideology, and there's plenty of that here. Beyond that, where a clear effort to expose oneself to critiques of ideology has been made is where you lie, but I detect no incentive in you to have really made much of an effort to see where self-aware progressives are coming from. It's not the fact that you disagree with what we've so far discussed, it's the complete closedness that you've shown to seeing the positives that progressives see in such a way that they would agree with you.

So regretably, even here, that legendary gold dust remains elusive.

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 4552
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

sorry but all of that sounded to me like an expression of your perception

what's the basis for this?:

"self-awareness, the conservative needs only critique their own ideology, where the progressive needs critique of both progressive and conservative ideology"

I think everyone needs to critique everything
an opinion is not complete without that
you may recall a little conversation we had
in which i critiqued a progressive idea?

in fact i think both sides
are more likely to turn their criticism onto the other side
than at themselves
i have not found progressives to be any less at fault for that

phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming

Posts: 4141
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

d0rkyd00d wrote:I don't know.....is it biased to say those with less education tend to accept ideology more without questioning? Or is it demonstrably true?

no that's not bias
that's just incorrect
the universities are completely ridden with ideology adepts
who follow like it's a cult
like the people who have deemed it unacceptable
to state scientific facts
if they might cause micro-aggressions on a minority group

It seems the evidence points towards the fact that those who lean Democrat tend to be more highly educated. I suppose, if one believes education somehow "poisons the mind,"

well that depends
is it really education we are talking about
or indoctrination?

a common theme amongst totalitarian mind control regimes, then it simply plays into the narrative of "education leads to brainwashing, only the uneducated are free," mentality.

funny that you should mention totalitarism
since it is the liberal side of things
running universities
who is leveling down the narrative
banning words
dragging renowned professionals through the mud
making it "appropriation" to wear whatever you want to wear
male gaze this
rape culture that
silence dissent pretty much

phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming

Posts: 4141
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

Sorry phone, but when you make sweeping statements without qualifiers like, "universities are completely ridden with ideology adepts who follow like it's a cult," it's hard to take what you're saying seriously.
"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men." -Voltaire

"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do."
-Bertrand Russell
d0rkyd00d
Philosopher

Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:37 pm

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

Progressivism is becoming a cult.
It's one thing to hold a progressive belief.
I don't care what people believe, I don't care if you're a communist, a flat earther or a Mormon, I could still have lunch with you as long as you don't try to impose your beliefs on me.
I agree with progressives on some fiscal and environmental issues, and disagree with them on others.
The major problem with progressivism, and progressives weren't always like this, is many, but not all of them think it's justified to commit violence against nonviolent people.
For many progressives, all speech they don't agree with on issues that're important to them, mainly on identity politics, is itself violent and intolerable, in fact it's even violence for you to tolerate wrongthink, and nonviolence to commit violence against people who commit wrongthink.
If that's not a cult, I don't know what is.
This belief, that some speech/thought is inherently violent, even when the speech is nonthreatening, that it's violent not to commit violence against people committing wrongthink, is a cult belief.
This type of mentality is now widespread on college campuses and in universities, and even many paleo-progressives if you will are finding it impossible to have a conversation with or teach these people.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 3305
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

'Silence is violence', you'll hear these people say.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 3305
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

It's not just fascists and Nazis, altho their speech should be protected too, everyone's should, it's anything right of center, hell anything right of center-left or far-left for many progressives is hate speech and grounds for not only canceling, doxing and harassment, but assault and murder.
This is no longer a minority opinion, this violently enforced groupthink is mainstream.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 3305
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

phoneutria wrote:sorry but all of that sounded to me like an expression of your perception

Of course it's an expression of my perception - no need to be sorry.
By my own admission I am willing to accept bias, yes. I prefer to iron out the rationale first though, just to check.

phoneutria wrote:what's the basis for this?:

"self-awareness, the conservative needs only critique their own ideology, where the progressive needs critique of both progressive and conservative ideology"

This is because, by default, the conservative is already living within their preferred ideology. The only need to critique any ideology comes from when their preferred ideology is uncovered, where they apologise for what is uncovered by emphasising the positives of their own ideology - which is basically exactly what ideology is for. They don't need to critique the opposing ideology that motivates the uncovering of the prevailing ideology, in order to do this. The ones who do it better are the ones who do actually critique their own ideology with self-awareness, to provide a legitimate counter to progressive critiques, but even here they need only strawman progressives to dismiss them (as is evidenced on this forum in spades). Why would they go to the extra effort of actually getting to the bottom of progressive ideology, and appreciating any progressive's self-awareness of their own ideology? That would equal out the playing field when, if they'd just put in less effort, they already had the advantage.

A progressive is by definition critiquing conservative ideology off the bat. A good one will be self-aware and critique their own ideology as well. Both bases covered, and all the incentive to equal out the playing field.

This is only my abductive reasoning, though I find the rationale pretty convincing.
I absolutely agree that everyone ought to critique everything - but in practice, I find that the above tends to prevent that. Most people are content to think as far as they need to, and simply "claim" it's a complete opinion. Conservatives always have the luxury of "it's currently working and it's currently better than other attempts in all these ways" to fall back on. Progressives are always on the backfoot due to this, and they tend to respond by making up for it philosophically (with many notable exceptions, obviously, I admit).

phoneutria wrote:I think everyone needs to critique everything
an opinion is not complete without that
you may recall a little conversation we had
in which i critiqued a progressive idea?

I absolutely remember our little conversation, and I remain grateful for your openness to discussing some progressive ideas. My distinction is that I sensed no openness to seeing what progressives might see as positive about the ideas you were critiquing. You've reminded me on multiple occasions that you are more or less centrist overall - and it is likely just a product of circumstance that we happen to have only really discussed one major topic in detail so far, to which you were decidedly closed, that I haven't yet been sufficiently exposed to the roundedness that one might expect from a centrist. No need to prove anything right now though, obviously - it'll come up when it comes up. Just expressing my perception thus far.

phoneutria wrote:in fact i think both sides
are more likely to turn their criticism onto the other side
than at themselves
i have not found progressives to be any less at fault for that

Without wishing to start a trashing spree, I wonder to what degree you think this holds for this forum specifically.
Do you regard "either side" as equally self-aware and open or closed to experience?
From my point of view, I see most openness amongst the centrists, none at all from the rightists, and a significant few amongst the leftists with some notable exceptions.
And that's the thing, there are tons of exceptions - I am exploring a general trend. You've already brought up the authoritarian left who are like an embarrassing relative that I would prefer to disown, and from whom I distance myself - but the authoritarian right are certainly no better. For for the majority, I see more openness leaning to the left. I believe I mentioned Jordan Peterson on another thread, a conservative neo-liberal with uncommon openness, who reports findings that corroborate mine from his considerable experience in clinical psychology and education, so I'd be surprised if "my perception" is completely false. Do you have evidence to the contrary, or are you too simply expressing your perception?

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 4552
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

d0rkyd00d wrote:Sorry phone, but when you make sweeping statements without qualifiers like, "universities are completely ridden with ideology adepts who follow like it's a cult," it's hard to take what you're saying seriously.

ok it's wrong when i do it
lol kid

whatever
i mentioned a specific case recently
an example if this trend of which i speak
and it's a damn good read
i bet you love the jordan p

"Missives of Appalling Idiocy and Envy Embarrassing to Behold"
https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/politic ... e-missive/

phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming

Posts: 4141
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

Silhouette wrote:I am willing to accept bias, yes. I prefer to iron out the rationale first though, just to check.

If you "iron out the rationale first" how is it "bias"? And if you accept bias, why bother ironing out the rationale until afterword - "rationalizing"?

Silhouette wrote:I absolutely agree that everyone ought to critique everything

That is the catch. And I have serious concern as to whether that is actually wise.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

obsrvr524 wrote:
Silhouette wrote:I am willing to accept bias, yes. I prefer to iron out the rationale first though, just to check.

If you "iron out the rationale first" how is it "bias"? And if you accept bias, why bother ironing out the rationale until afterword - "rationalizing"?

Bias? -> rationale check -> accept/reject.
^Is what I meant.

obsrvr524 wrote:
Silhouette wrote:I absolutely agree that everyone ought to critique everything

That is the catch. And I have serious concern as to whether that is actually wise.

You could be right.
I'm willing to be swayed via rationale, if you have?

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 4552
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

Silhouette wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
Silhouette wrote:I am willing to accept bias, yes. I prefer to iron out the rationale first though, just to check.

If you "iron out the rationale first" how is it "bias"? And if you accept bias, why bother ironing out the rationale until afterword - "rationalizing"?

Bias? -> rationale check -> accept/reject.
^Is what I meant.

It took a bit for me to translate that but ok. I would call that "accepting the possibility of bias" rather than "accepting bias".

Silhouette wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
Silhouette wrote:I absolutely agree that everyone ought to critique everything

That is the catch. And I have serious concern as to whether that is actually wise.

You could be right.
I'm willing to be swayed via rationale, if you have?

Oh I definitely have it but have been holding it off for a while. Like SCOTUS I need to see a proposed resolution before I pronounce judgement. I'm still looking at what James had proposed on this issue for ideas.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

Silhouette wrote:This is because, by default, the conservative is already living within their preferred ideology.

no, he is not
we're all living somewhere in between
the present society is a compromise between progressive and conservative pressures
surely the conservatives would like to be living in a more conservative setting
and repeal progressive ideas that are presently accepted
thus i consider your reasoning to be invalid

phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming

Posts: 4141
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

phoneutria wrote:
Silhouette wrote:This is because, by default, the conservative is already living within their preferred ideology.

no, he is not
we're all living somewhere in between
the present society is a compromise between progressive and conservative pressures
surely the conservatives would like to be living in a more conservative setting
and repeal progressive ideas that are presently accepted
thus i consider your reasoning to be invalid

I suppose the self-identifying "conservative" and/or one who is identified by others as "conservative" - as in the above quote - is more of a regressive in practice.
To that extent, they want to conserve former ways that they feel have already been compromised - to "go back" to some nostalgic longing for "the good old days when things used to be better and simpler" e.g. MAGA.

The same applies though.
They grew into an ideology that worked in practice, an ideology grown and informed from generations and stories of the past, and they lament the ideological critique of the progressives, who "ruined" things.
They don't need to understand the progressive ideology, only react negatively to any change they've suffered in accordance with their ideology that's being critiqued.
The only difference between this and those who want to conserve how things are right now (as opposed to the past) is the time frame. Ideology was cultivated as part of everyday life to excuse it in both cases, and they're closed to the new experience in both cases.

Progressives, by definition, haven't yet had a chance for any allegedly "improved" ideology to properly get off the ground, and be another "working" ideology like the conservatives yearn to revisit.
All they have is their ideology of critiquing conservative ideology, resulting from a negative view of current material conditions.
This necessitates openness to new and different experience from the current and/or former ways, and it necessitates ideological critique, as a fundamental requirement.

I think you're seeing ideology as just the explicit rationale, instead of the implicit psychological justification that's "lived" unconsciousnessly rather than debated consciously.
This seems to be the only way that you can see them as "the same", except hoping in different directions.
Would that be fair?

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 4552
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

DorkyD00d if you really want to know why Trumpters believe and say what they do listen to that video all the way through. I know you will find an issue and be tempted to say, "wait - that isn't proven" and focus on only that issue but when that happens, try to not lose focus on the rest.

This next video also tells a the story from Sidney Powell. You can stop immediately after her interview because the rest gets more religious than you can probably tolerate.

Both discuss pathways for Mr Trump's victory through the standing laws. And both respect the political pressure and corruption that might prevent those laws from being enforced.

Watch them and let us know what you think of what they said (not merely whether you like it).
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

I watched both videos, but I didn't really hear anything new. I tune in frequently to the Right Side Broadcasting Network on Youtube to watch the hearings and arguments from Giuliani and others, so I am familiar with the arguments they are making. Here are the questions I wrote down as I was watching the videos (in no particular order).

Is it a good precedent to set for the federal government and senators of other states to be able to determine for any individual state how their election process works? That is what it seems these folks are fighting for, which seems contrary to the idea of smaller federal government. Suppose Barack Obama and Joe Biden had withheld intelligence from Trump, claimed the election was fraudulent, and said they would be taking it to court and getting it overturned. Imagine Joe Biden on January 6th, 2016, refusing to accept the electoral college voters and instead choosing his own, who elect Hillary Clinton as president. Do you think there would be outrage? Considering this the reaction from the left that surprising?

If election fraud is such a serious issue, why wasn't anybody looking into it after the 2016 elections (Pres Trump was stating the elections were wraught with fraud at that time)?

Certainly what I suppose many Trump supporters would consider "the swamp" was investigating Trump's election campaign and election interference from a foreign adversary; yet, this did not prevent that administration from beginning the smooth transfer of power process. Why is this so different?

Tom Fitton talks about social media's role in the election. It seems very likely Facebook had a large role to play in Trump's success in 2016. The left complained about social media's role in his victory. Why wasn't it a problem for all of these folks, who are now speaking out, back then? Is it simply because they didn't care because their guy won?

Was the Dominion system hacked/altered sometime in the past four years? If not, why wouldn't it have been exploited in 2016? I don't think "the swamp" wanted Trump back then either, if voting can be manipulated that easily, how did Trump get elected?

I am a man very open to evidence. If Trump took these cases to court and won the majority of them, and these (often times Trump appointed) judges did co-sign onto widespread voter fraud being evident, I would change my opinion about the legitimacy of this election (and past elections, for that matter). If the case went to the Supreme court and won, I would become even more skeptical of the fairness of the elections. If Bill Barr came out and said he believed there was widespread voter fraud that desperately needed to be looked into, I'll be honest: I would think Barr is in Trump's pocket and that he was corrupted most likely. But that didn't even happen, he caught me by surprise by affirming they saw no evidence of widespread voter fraud. If Trump only won the cases that went to judges he appointed, and lost most cases to left leaning judges, then I would start to think the partisanship had leaked deeply into the courts. There are many things that, to me, would have demonstrated there is some credence to these claims. But when no courts or Republican governors (who support and voted for Trump), or DOJ officials, are claiming there is legitimacy to these claims, my conspiracy doesn't grow in size to accommodate these facts; rather, it lends to the idea that, as it appears, the evidence being brought forth is not legitimate in the eyes of the justice system. Now, if the complaint is there are problems with our justice system, I need a better understanding of how their judgments were flawed.
"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men." -Voltaire

"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do."
-Bertrand Russell
d0rkyd00d
Philosopher

Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:37 pm

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

One last point. I keep hearing about the 75MM voters who will be disenfranchised if Trump is not re-elected. Let' suppose there were 2.5MM illegal votes counted for Biden, which is a higher estimate than what I've seen being claimed. That still means there are the same amount of Americans who will have their vote discarded if, somehow, Trump is able to pull of the elector scheme on Jan. 6th, admittedly something that has not been tried since the procedure for transfer of power was put in place.

Is it not reasonable for this other half of the population to be concerned with how this is proceeding?
"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men." -Voltaire

"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do."
-Bertrand Russell
d0rkyd00d
Philosopher

Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:37 pm

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

d0rkyd00d wrote:One last point. I keep hearing about the 75MM voters who will be disenfranchised if Trump is not re-elected. Let' suppose there were 2.5MM illegal votes counted for Biden, which is a higher estimate than what I've seen being claimed. That still means there are the same amount of Americans who will have their vote discarded if, somehow, Trump is able to pull of the elector scheme on Jan. 6th, admittedly something that has not been tried since the procedure for transfer of power was put in place.

Is it not reasonable for this other half of the population to be concerned with how this is proceeding?

The Biden supporters know that the election was illegitimate and also that Mr Hiden, Lyin Biden is a fraud - they just don't care.

• So on one side there are people saying "we have been cheated out of a good President".
• On the other side - "we want to keep our cheat for our bad President".

Those are not equal but opposite.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

d0rkyd00d wrote:I watched both videos, but I didn't really hear anything new. I tune in frequently to the Right Side Broadcasting Network on Youtube to watch the hearings and arguments from Giuliani and others, so I am familiar with the arguments they are making. Here are the questions I wrote down as I was watching the videos (in no particular order).

But is that only because you ignored the same portions as always? I am not accusing but pointing out a possibility. You have listed questions but did you list any acknowledgements?

d0rkyd00d wrote:Is it a good precedent to set for the federal government and senators of other states to be able to determine for any individual state how their election process works? That is what it seems these folks are fighting for, which seems contrary to the idea of smaller federal government.

That is not what is happening. Georgia and Pennsylvania broke their own laws. That is an interstate issue because it implies that ALL states MUST break their own laws in order to fairly compete in federal elections. If allowed it solidifies division between the states - who can cheat the most? The actual popular vote never gets heard anywhere.

So for each state to demand that all other states at least not cheat their own election laws is keeping the entire nation more stable and democratic for the population.

d0rkyd00d wrote:Suppose Barack Obama and Joe Biden had withheld intelligence from Trump, claimed the election was fraudulent, and said they would be taking it to court and getting it overturned. Imagine Joe Biden on January 6th, 2016, refusing to accept the electoral college voters and instead choosing his own, who elect Hillary Clinton as president. Do you think there would be outrage? Considering this the reaction from the left that surprising?

That is exactly what happened with Trump/Hillary in 2016. To this day Hillary still claims that she was cheated. I have no doubt that the fact is she was cheating in 2016 (as was Mr Obama in 2012) but just didn't cheat enough to get the electoral votes she needed. Most of their cheating was merely in California. This time they corrected for that with massive cheating costing them around $1 billion placed where it counted - the swing states (many already expected that). So there was already outrage from the left for 4 years. What would be new? We haven't seen what happens when the Right gets morally offended this deeply and the US loses its Democratic-Republic status to become a one party oligarchy lead by known criminals controlled by the CCP. d0rkyd00d wrote:If election fraud is such a serious issue, why wasn't anybody looking into it after the 2016 elections (Pres Trump was stating the elections were wrought with fraud at that time)? Two reasons - • the cheaters lost anyway so it was less important and also • the cheaters have the MSM silencing any accusations (as they are even more today). The cheaters in government and MSM were heavily involved in ensuring that cheating was going to still be allowed - in fact ensuring that even more was to be allowed as Ms Pelosi attempted to force a bill through Congress granting nationwide mail-in voting even before COVID. A special council with President Carter had reported years earlier that mail-in voting was far too dangerous to be allowed. So she (and they) knew what they were going for - massive overwhelming and overturning fraud. They got caught because they STILL underestimated how much fraud it was going to take so time was illegally given to them to print and count more fraudulent ballots. That is what would normally be going in the history books for the future but once the world is lost to communism, books get burned or buried and history gets rewritten. Mr Obama actually argued in SCOTUS that he had the Presidential right to literally burn disfavorable political books throughout the nation. MSM hid that one from the public. d0rkyd00d wrote:Certainly what I suppose many Trump supporters would consider "the swamp" was investigating Trump's election campaign and election interference from a foreign adversary; yet, this did not prevent that administration from beginning the smooth transfer of power process. Why is this so different? "Smooth"? They were screaming "IMPEACH HIM" literally the first day. And for 4 years relentlessly tried to overturn the 2016 election through fraudulent criminal charges. In reality they were committing treason. But it has been demonstrated that regardless of the proven criminality, socialist democrats get a pass (proving that socialism is already controlling the US - except for Mr Trump "dividing the populous" - exposing the socialist criminals). And they certainly couldn't keep demanding recounts and audits else THEY would be caught - so not many court hearings being requested by the thieves. It is the honest one who demands the audit. If the cheater loses he certainly isn't going to make such a demand. It was all anything but a "peaceful transition". They initiated an immediate and relentless coop still going on today - The Devil vs Donal Trump. d0rkyd00d wrote:Tom Fitton talks about social media's role in the election. It seems very likely Facebook had a large role to play in Trump's success in 2016. The left complained about social media's role in his victory. Why wasn't it a problem for all of these folks, who are now speaking out, back then? Is it simply because they didn't care because their guy won? Back then Twitter and the entire Left was expecting Mr Trump to just look foolish as he lost. Twitter didn't realize how much popularity Mr Trump was gaining from their platform. And back then, they were far less bold to censor people. This time they censor in huge ways even removing Mr Trump's posts because they know that this is the final battle against the US Constitution. All stops are removed. They screw up but they learn how to cheat better next time - because they are never punished. d0rkyd00d wrote:Was the Dominion system hacked/altered sometime in the past four years? If not, why wouldn't it have been exploited in 2016? I don't think "the swamp" wanted Trump back then either, if voting can be manipulated that easily, how did Trump get elected? I believe it was - just not enough for Hillary to win. They try to calculate the cheat to be as little as possible to keep it less obvious. This time they had to cheat so much they couldn't avoid being obvious so now they depend on MSM and corruption to give them a pass anyway. I have no doubt that Hillary's greater "popular vote" was entirely by fraud. d0rkyd00d wrote:I am a man very open to evidence. That is not what we are seeing from you. You appear to pick and choose which evidence and arguments you want to hear. Again notice that you gave no acknowledgements of ANY of the proposed evidence. You focus entirely on the evidence and arguments you think might be to your favor. This post proves that quite clearly. You had a chance to prove otherwise. You blew it. d0rkyd00d wrote:If Trump took these cases to court and won the majority of them, and these (often times Trump appointed) judges did co-sign onto widespread voter fraud being evident, I would change my opinion about the legitimacy of this election (and past elections, for that matter). We are all aware that naive people do that - "no one could pull the wool over my eyes" - "all those Chinese couldn't be wrong" - "of course the world is flat else they would have told us" - Argumentum ad Populum and Appeal to Authority - two noted logic fallacies (look them up). Corruption is far far far more common than the young and naive believe. Even Mr Trump didn't believe it was as bad as he discovered it to be. When MSM became the propaganda ministry of the USA, corruption flourished. d0rkyd00d wrote:Now, if the complaint is there are problems with our justice system, I need a better understanding of how their judgments were flawed. Show me that you have balanced judgement of your own else trying to point out the lack of good judgement of others is a bit of a waste, don't you think? As it stands, I have no reason to believe that anything I have said in this post has changed anything you already decided - just as those videos didn't. You make it clear that I am wasting time explaining this for you by never acknowledging the validity of any of my arguments. And soon you will probably be making the same arguments that have already been debunked in this post. You present yourself in display as someone who is willingly and blindly (ignoring counter arguments) biased. THAT is why they keep attacking you. You say that you are an honest judge yet you continually display the opposite. This example makes it very clear. If you want anyone to believe that you are honest you HAVE to display with sustained acknowledgement when a good argument is made. You don't do that so they keep believing what you actually display. Why wouldn't they? Everything has a reason. You mentioned that your family is conservative. That makes me think that you are kept in a state of having to constantly defend yourself. They push you one way. You push back. It becomes habitual, vested, and ingrained. I'd bet that if they were far left liberals, you would be the opposite making the same arguments that I am making to you. It is hard to be the only honest one in the room when the entire room is one sided. In such a room, even I am tempted to stand up for the liberal position merely because honesty requires representation and when it isn't being represented by anyone, it is tempting to become that one. I know this because most of the people around me are strongly liberal merely spouting MSM memes while ignoring the greater calamity. Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1 You have been observed. Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it obsrvr524 Philosopher Posts: 1860 Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am ### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap? obsrvr524 wrote: d0rkyd00d wrote:One last point. I keep hearing about the 75MM voters who will be disenfranchised if Trump is not re-elected. Let' suppose there were 2.5MM illegal votes counted for Biden, which is a higher estimate than what I've seen being claimed. That still means there are the same amount of Americans who will have their vote discarded if, somehow, Trump is able to pull of the elector scheme on Jan. 6th, admittedly something that has not been tried since the procedure for transfer of power was put in place. Is it not reasonable for this other half of the population to be concerned with how this is proceeding? The Biden supporters know that the election was illegitimate and also that Mr Hiden, Lyin Biden is a fraud - they just don't care. • So on one side there are people saying "we have been cheated out of a good President". • On the other side - "we want to keep our cheat for our bad President". Those are not equal but opposite. If you think the majority of Biden supporters (if any) believe he won illegitimately, I'm afraid you're badly mistaken. "So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men." -Voltaire "If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do." -Bertrand Russell d0rkyd00d Philosopher Posts: 2987 Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:37 pm ### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap? d0rkyd00d wrote:If you think the majority of Biden supporters (if any) believe he won illegitimately, I'm afraid you're badly mistaken. Be afraid if you like but realize if they took a poll after the 2016 election asking if Mr Trump won legitimately, how many Trumpers do you think would tell you that he didn't - even if they thought that he really didn't? When they took that poll - asking Democrats if their man was illegitimately elected - do you really think that even half of them would be honest about it? Apparently at least 30% were in saying "yes - the election was a fraud". If that many were willing to be honest, just imagine how many really thought the same but weren't willing to say it. I would guess that about 70% of ALL Americans believe the election was a fraud. And across the world, probably 95%. Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1 You have been observed. Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it obsrvr524 Philosopher Posts: 1860 Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am ### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap? d0rkyd00d wrote:I watched both videos, but I didn't really hear anything new. I tune in frequently to the Right Side Broadcasting Network on Youtube to watch the hearings and arguments from Giuliani and others, so I am familiar with the arguments they are making. Here are the questions I wrote down as I was watching the videos (in no particular order). obsrvr524 wrote:But is that only because you ignored the same portions as always? I am not accusing but pointing out a possibility. You have listed questions but did you list any acknowledgements? Nope, just hearing the same old arguments. d0rkyd00d wrote:Is it a good precedent to set for the federal government and senators of other states to be able to determine for any individual state how their election process works? That is what it seems these folks are fighting for, which seems contrary to the idea of smaller federal government. obsrvr524 wrote:That is not what is happening. Georgia and Pennsylvania broke their own laws. That is an interstate issue because it implies that ALL states MUST break their own laws in order to fairly compete in federal elections. If allowed it solidifies division between the states - who can cheat the most? The actual popular vote never gets heard anywhere. So for each state to demand that all other states at least not cheat their own election laws is keeping the entire nation more stable and democratic for the population. They didn't break their own laws. d0rkyd00d wrote:Suppose Barack Obama and Joe Biden had withheld intelligence from Trump, claimed the election was fraudulent, and said they would be taking it to court and getting it overturned. Imagine Joe Biden on January 6th, 2016, refusing to accept the electoral college voters and instead choosing his own, who elect Hillary Clinton as president. Do you think there would be outrage? Considering this the reaction from the left that surprising? obsrvr524 wrote:That is exactly what happened with Trump/Hillary in 2016. To this day Hillary still claims that she was cheated. I have no doubt that the fact is she was cheating in 2016 (as was Mr Obama in 2012) but just didn't cheat enough to get the electoral votes she needed. Most of their cheating was merely in California. This time they corrected for that with massive cheating costing them around$1 billion placed where it counted - the swing states (many already expected that).

So there was already outrage from the left for 4 years. What would be new? We haven't seen what happens when the Right gets morally offended this deeply and the US loses its Democratic-Republic status to become a one party oligarchy lead by known criminals controlled by the CCP.

No it's not what happened with Trump, you're attacking a straw man. Where the hell did Hillary come from? I said Obama was not claiming the election was fraudulent. The sitting president was not making things difficult for the incoming president. And now I hear a lot of the same individuals telling the "snowflakes" who were protesting the election of President Trump calling for civil war if the election isn't overturned. It's hypocritical.

d0rkyd00d wrote:If election fraud is such a serious issue, why wasn't anybody looking into it after the 2016 elections (Pres Trump was stating the elections were wrought with fraud at that time)?

obsrvr524 wrote:Two reasons -
• the cheaters lost anyway so it was less important and also
• the cheaters have the MSM silencing any accusations (as they are even more today).

The cheaters in government and MSM were heavily involved in ensuring that cheating was going to still be allowed - in fact ensuring that even more was to be allowed as Ms Pelosi attempted to force a bill through Congress granting nationwide mail-in voting even before COVID. A special council with President Carter had reported years earlier that mail-in voting was far too dangerous to be allowed. So she (and they) knew what they were going for - massive overwhelming and overturning fraud. They got caught because they STILL underestimated how much fraud it was going to take so time was illegally given to them to print and count more fraudulent ballots.

That is what would normally be going in the history books for the future but once the world is lost to communism, books get burned or buried and history gets rewritten. Mr Obama actually argued in SCOTUS that he had the Presidential right to literally burn disfavorable political books throughout the nation. MSM hid that one from the public.

Your "reasons" are both faith based claims, something I cannot accept as arguments. I need evidence. Think about what you are claiming here: that Trump & others in his administration knew about election fraud but didn't care because they won. That either demonstrates absolute shortsightedness, or you're assumption is incorrect, and nobody took claims of election fraud seriously.

d0rkyd00d wrote:Certainly what I suppose many Trump supporters would consider "the swamp" was investigating Trump's election campaign and election interference from a foreign adversary; yet, this did not prevent that administration from beginning the smooth transfer of power process. Why is this so different?

obsrvr524 wrote:"Smooth"?
They were screaming "IMPEACH HIM" literally the first day. And for 4 years relentlessly tried to overturn the 2016 election through fraudulent criminal charges. In reality they were committing treason. But it has been demonstrated that regardless of the proven criminality, socialist democrats get a pass (proving that socialism is already controlling the US - except for Mr Trump "dividing the populous" - exposing the socialist criminals).

And they certainly couldn't keep demanding recounts and audits else THEY would be caught - so not many court hearings being requested by the thieves. It is the honest one who demands the audit. If the cheater loses he certainly isn't going to make such a demand.

It was all anything but a "peaceful transition". They initiated an immediate and relentless coop still going on today - The Devil vs Donal Trump.

You're right, if by "they" you mean Congress. But Obama wasn't. Neither was Biden, as far as I can recall.

d0rkyd00d wrote:Tom Fitton talks about social media's role in the election. It seems very likely Facebook had a large role to play in Trump's success in 2016. The left complained about social media's role in his victory. Why wasn't it a problem for all of these folks, who are now speaking out, back then? Is it simply because they didn't care because their guy won?

obsrvr524 wrote:Back then Twitter and the entire Left was expecting Mr Trump to just look foolish as he lost. Twitter didn't realize how much popularity Mr Trump was gaining from their platform. And back then, they were far less bold to censor people. This time they censor in huge ways even removing Mr Trump's posts because they know that this is the final battle against the US Constitution. All stops are removed.

They screw up but they learn how to cheat better next time - because they are never punished.

Again, if they didn't feel like it was an issue then simply because they won, I don't have any compassion for them on this issue. It should be wrong all the time, not when it is convenient for one side or the other.

d0rkyd00d wrote:Was the Dominion system hacked/altered sometime in the past four years? If not, why wouldn't it have been exploited in 2016? I don't think "the swamp" wanted Trump back then either, if voting can be manipulated that easily, how did Trump get elected?

obsrvr524 wrote:I believe it was - just not enough for Hillary to win. They try to calculate the cheat to be as little as possible to keep it less obvious. This time they had to cheat so much they couldn't avoid being obvious so now they depend on MSM and corruption to give them a pass anyway. I have no doubt that Hillary's greater "popular vote" was entirely by fraud.

Let me know when you have some evidence for those beliefs. I mean evidence from the 2016 election.

d0rkyd00d wrote:I am a man very open to evidence.

obsrvr524 wrote:That is not what we are seeing from you. You appear to pick and choose which evidence and arguments you want to hear. Again notice that you gave no acknowledgements of ANY of the proposed evidence. You focus entirely on the evidence and arguments you think might be to your favor. This post proves that quite clearly. You had a chance to prove otherwise. You blew it.

I'm open to all evidence and arguments, I just haven't heard or seen anything convincing. Your response hasn't demonstrated otherwise.

d0rkyd00d wrote:If Trump took these cases to court and won the majority of them, and these (often times Trump appointed) judges did co-sign onto widespread voter fraud being evident, I would change my opinion about the legitimacy of this election (and past elections, for that matter).

obsrvr524 wrote:We are all aware that naive people do that - "no one could pull the wool over my eyes" - "all those Chinese couldn't be wrong" - "of course the world is flat else they would have told us" - Argumentum ad Populum and Appeal to Authority - two noted logic fallacies (look them up).

Corruption is far far far more common than the young and naive believe. Even Mr Trump didn't believe it was as bad as he discovered it to be. When MSM became the propaganda ministry of the USA, corruption flourished.

Yes, all who don't believe in election fraud are young and naive. Boomers aren't naive at all... And you're right, I'm appealing to judges who seem to have a better handle on the justice system than I do, and tossed around 50 out of 51 cases out of court if memory serves me correctly. Although it is an appeal to authority, most of these authorities are Trump appointed and Trump supporters.

d0rkyd00d wrote:Now, if the complaint is there are problems with our justice system, I need a better understanding of how their judgments were flawed.

obsrvr524 wrote:Show me that you have balanced judgement of your own else trying to point out the lack of good judgement of others is a bit of a waste, don't you think?

Rubber, glue, etc. I'm sure someone, somewhere, has consolidated the rulings of these judges on these various cases that have been tossed out. I've read through a few of them, and I didn't notice anything unreasonable or out of place. So I'm curious as to what your issue was with their judgments.

obsrvr524 wrote:As it stands, I have no reason to believe that anything I have said in this post has changed anything you already decided - just as those videos didn't. You make it clear that I am wasting time explaining this for you by never acknowledging the validity of any of my arguments. And soon you will probably be making the same arguments that have already been debunked in this post.

You present yourself in display as someone who is willingly and blindly (ignoring counter arguments) biased. THAT is why they keep attacking you. You say that you are an honest judge yet you continually display the opposite. This example makes it very clear. If you want anyone to believe that you are honest you HAVE to display with sustained acknowledgement when a good argument is made. You don't do that so they keep believing what you actually display. Why wouldn't they? Everything has a reason.

You mentioned that your family is conservative. That makes me think that you are kept in a state of having to constantly defend yourself. They push you one way. You push back. It becomes habitual, vested, and ingrained.

I'd bet that if they were far left liberals, you would be the opposite making the same arguments that I am making to you. It is hard to be the only honest one in the room when the entire room is one sided. In such a room, even I am tempted to stand up for the liberal position merely because honesty requires representation and when it isn't being represented by anyone, it is tempting to become that one. I know this because most of the people around me are strongly liberal merely spouting MSM memes while ignoring the greater calamity.

Not really. My fam and I (with the exception of my cousin) don't talk politics too much. Of course the videos didn't change my mind, they didn't offer any arguments or new evidence I haven't heard that would change my mind. Again, it's an extraordinary claim. I need more evidence. I need to see proof of how a widespread voter fraud scheme was perpetrated. There had to be communications that spanned country-wide and are tied back to Democrats / the left. There has to be evidence of orchestration. And not just a few pieces of evidence here and there: I need a massive amount of overwhelming evidence, because to me it seems like such an extraordinary claim.
"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men." -Voltaire

"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do."
-Bertrand Russell
d0rkyd00d
Philosopher

Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:37 pm

### Re: Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

obsrvr524 wrote:
d0rkyd00d wrote:If you think the majority of Biden supporters (if any) believe he won illegitimately, I'm afraid you're badly mistaken.

Be afraid if you like but realize if they took a poll after the 2016 election asking if Mr Trump won legitimately, how many Trumpers do you think would tell you that he didn't - even if they thought that he really didn't?

When they took that poll - asking Democrats if their man was illegitimately elected - do you really think that even half of them would be honest about it? Apparently at least 30% were in saying "yes - the election was a fraud".

If that many were willing to be honest, just imagine how many really thought the same but weren't willing to say it.

I would guess that about 70% of ALL Americans believe the election was a fraud. And across the world, probably 95%.

All evidence I have seen points to the fact that those who voted for Biden, believe he won legitimately. Again, I'm open to evidence to the contrary.
"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men." -Voltaire

"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do."
-Bertrand Russell
d0rkyd00d
Philosopher

Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:37 pm

PreviousNext