Why People Voted For Trump – For Those Who Don't Get It

[The Big Dog]

Which is a strange assertion given that d neither of us ha changed or positions.



Since when is pointing our that one is reasoning inconsistently an insult?

http://bennorton.com/grahams-hierarchy-of-disagreement-and-internet-arguments/

 

[mijopaalmc]

http://bennorton.com/grahams-hierarchy-of-disagreement-and-internet-arguments/

Saying there's a formal inconsistency in an argument is addressing the argument not the arguer.

 

[Donal]

He's trying to derail from the conversation. Let it go. We're talking about Trump supporters not wanting to face the fact that they are either racist, or that being racist isn't a big deal to them.

 

[The Big Dog]

Saying there's a formal inconsistency in an argument is addressing the argument not the arguer.

And now we slip back.

There is no formal inconsistency in the "argument." You are asserting that the arguer is a "hypocrite" which is an ad hominem.

This is of course proven by the fact that the original argument did not mention or rely on Bush or anyone other than Clinton in the first place, but rather was brought up to intend to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently.

QED.

 

[The Big Dog]

He's trying to derail from the conversation. Let it go. We're talking about Trump supporters not wanting to face the fact that they are either racist, or that being racist isn't a big deal to them.

Oh man...

we don't want to talk about the OP's comment about Hillary's email scandal, we jest wanna call them RACIST!

Fantastic.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Please make up your mind - was the media biased in favor of Hillary, or against her? Because all of these 'issues' you think she has were being pushed by the very same media that you accuse of being in her pocket. Bucketloads of innuendo, distortion and lies that time and time again proved to have no substance.

Keep in mind that US media publishers/broadcasters politically start Center-Right at their most liberal end and get more conservative from there.

Isn't corporate ownership of media wonderful?

The media is biased alright - towards anything that generates controversy and keeps people's eyes glued to the screen. It's all about ratings and profit for them, truth be damned! Unfortunately many Americans are too thick to see this, and most just use the media to reinforce their own biases.

Which fits perfectly with the profit agenda of corporations. Sex sells. Blood sells. Truth makes peoples' heads hurt and doesn't sell.

Get used to it. Trump will continue to attract such mockery because he deserves it. I suspect he actually does it deliberately just to get attention - and so far the strategy is working brilliantly! But that's a problem for people on the right, because Trump's a Republican so they have to make-believe that everything he does is right. [/quote]

Trump will continue to attract mockery, but very little actual investigation into his corrupt business dealings, his sexual assaults/rapes, etc.

As for the rest of the World, we think he's priceless - especially those of us who hate America!

Easy for you to say, as he's not on the verge of destroying YOUR country.

 

[mijopaalmc]

And now we slip back.

There is no formal inconsistency in the "argument." You are asserting that the arguer is a "hypocrite" which is an ad hominem.

This is of course proven by the fact that the original argument did not mention or rely on Bush or anyone other than Clinton in the first place, but rather was brought up to intend to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently.

QED.

No, it was a failure to argue consistently.

Why does Clinton's destruction of evidence make her untrustworthy enough to preclude voting for her but Trump's destruction of evidence doesn't make him untrustworthy enough to preclude voting for him?

 

[Minoosh]

The trouble is that the Carrier union rep is that he is a union official which makes him - from a Trump supporter perspective - a job-killing commie, and thus can be safely ignored.

The "truth" as far as Trump supporters are concerned is that their man did more in one day to protect US jobs before he even became President than Obama managed in 8 years (completely ignoring the fact that under Obama 1 million more manufacturing jobs were created and Trump has bribed Carrier just to offshore fewer jobs).

Dems need to get better at the "optics" then. Trump's maneuver with Carrier involved strident protectionism and will eventually cost him something. A few hundred people in Indiana kept their jobs and a few hundred lost theirs. I do see a few hundred here and there as adding up eventually to a more realistic evaluation of Trump's promises and potential.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, it was a failure to argue consistently.

Why does Clinton's destruction of evidence make her untrustworthy enough to preclude voting for her but Trump's destruction of evidence doesn't make him untrustworthy enough to preclude voting for him?

That makes no sense at all.

Are you having trouble with the definition? Here it is again:

Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/; Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

Furthermore the OP specifically spelled out in detail why Clinton's conduct made her dishonest.

 

[mijopaalmc]

That makes no sense at all.

Are you having trouble with the definition? Here it is again:



Furthermore the OP specifically spelled out in detail why Clinton's conduct made her dishonest.

No, I'm not having trouble with the definition, though you seem to be. The definition addresses asserting the falsity of the conclusion nor questioning the consistency of the argument.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

He's trying to derail from the conversation. Let it go. We're talking about Trump supporters not wanting to face the fact that they are either racist, or that being racist isn't a big deal to them.

Generally speaking, voters don't have to agree with every position a candidate takes to support them. Voting involves selecting not the absolute perfect candidate, but the best candidate from the choices on offer, according to which political/social interests they deem most important.

Trump's support comes from several different constituencies:

Blue-collar working class voters (esp in the "Rust Belt" and Middle America) who have been abandoned by both the globalized economy as well as by political parties.

Religious conservatives for whom issues like abortion are non-negotiable.

One of his larger constituencies are socially disaffected people sick of being stuck on the "piss on" end of Identity Politics. These are the cultural conservatives, men, traditional patriots, etc.

Each has had good reason to be pissed at "liberals", who have spent many years (going back pre-Obama btw) being told essentially to "sit down, shut up" while their interests have not only been ignored, but often times openly derided and worked against by the Democratic Party, who then turned around and expected their votes in elections.

Well, they finally had enough, You can only kick a dog for so long until he either just lies down and takes it or he turns on you. The "dog" turned, and it's going to be a frakking nightmare trying to get him to ever trust Democrats again.

To better understand at least part of the issue, I suggest this article:

https://www.thenation.com/article/w...eople-vote-against-their-interests-they-dont/

and the book "Listen Up, Liberal!" by Thomas Frank.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, I'm not having trouble with the definition, though you seem to be. The definition addresses asserting the falsity of the conclusion nor questioning the consistency of the argument.

W.T.F.

"discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s)."

At this point, I can only assume that I am getting punked. This is so unbelievably simple, I have explained it as one would do with a young person and in response we get this pig's breakfast of a sentence?

The definition addresses asserting the falsity of the conclusion nor questioning the consistency of the argument.
I mean, you gotta be kidding

 

[CosCos]

You've very much the type of person I'd like to hear more from. Was there any way a non-Hillary mainstream Democrat could have gotten your vote this past election? Were there particular aspects of Trump's platform or rhetoric you found especially appealing?

I don't know, are there any Democrats that espouse conservative values? If there were I would surely have considered them. However, I probably would have voted for Clinton before I would have voted for Sanders, again the whole ideology thing.

I don't consider myself a hardcore Trump fan. In fact, as recently as March I considered myself a Never Trumper. However, the more I actually listened to what he was saying, which arguably became increasingly difficult through the noise, the more I was attracted to the America first message.

I'm a first generation immigrant. I immigrated from an Islamic country. I love America. America is the greatest nation on earth as far as I'm concerned. I love American values of hard work, honesty, and love of one's country. Basically, all the things that people on this board look down on, I embody. And I value all these things precisely because I know full well what the alternative is. I don't like the direction the country was going in the last few years. Too much leftism, too much socialism, too much thought policing, too much islamic terrorism that no one wanted to face. Too much illegal immigration that no one wanted to face. Trump was speaking that language, so yeah, he appealed to me once I bothered to learn his platform outside of the OMGHITLER reportage.

Again, I find it hilarious that people ACTUALLY THINK he's a white supremacist nazi. Like for reals! a 70 something year old man who's been very much in the public eye, who's had a lot of success in business, TV, and other ventures, who has employed thousands of people, who has had to deal with thousands of people. You never heard ANYTHING about what a moron bigot he was....until he dared run against the left. Then all of a sudden he's the antichrist. Sorry, I'm smarter than that.

I'll come on this board every now and then and remind myself of how truly unhinged some people are just because we disagree idealogically, and then giggle because people ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS STUFF!

 

[Donal]

Oh man...

we don't want to talk about the OP's comment about Hillary's email scandal, we jest wanna call them RACIST!

Fantastic.

Well, I do have a habit of basing conclusions upon available evidence. The OP is an attempt to try and spin Trump supporters as some poor oppressed broken creatures that are misunderstood and unheard. That narrative has been debunked by simply listening to them. They indict themselves.

 

[mijopaalmc]

W.T.F.

"discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s)."

At this point, I can only assume that I am getting punked. This is so unbelievably simple, I have explained it as one would do with a young person and in response we get this pig's breakfast of a sentence?

The definition addresses asserting the falsity of the conclusion nor questioning the consistency of the argument.
I mean, you gotta be kidding

You're highlighting the wrong part of the definition. You're ignoring the fact that, in the definition, the justification for questioning the consistency is not the consistency of the argument itself but the regulars actions. What was being questioned in the thread was not the arguers actions insofar as they voted for Trump but the arguer's justification for those actions.

 

[The Big Dog]

The OP is an attempt to try and spin Trump supporters as some poor oppressed broken creatures that are misunderstood and unheard. .

heck of a strawman.

stick to calling people racist

 

[Aepervius]

You saw Hillary as a good, or at least the better, candidate

I can stop you right there. Many of us saw Hilary as the least worst candidate.

Also many of us saw what fascism, populism and demagogy can do to countries, or have parents old enough to remember or have lived through it.

But many of us (not even counting we are not living in the US) are powerless against those.

Too many rube to get hooked by it do not want to hear or listen.

ETA: it does not help that the system is so designed , that a demagogic candidate does not need the popular vote. It only need a few key places, and some apathy from the other side to win, in spite of having less votes.

Either get completely ride of the electoral college, or get completely ride of the vote altogether. The bastard system make no sense. It certainly does not stop a fascist or demagogic candidate get elected, as it is blindingly obvious now, and it certainly give different weight to the vote of peoples : some vote count more than other/ have more weight.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

I don't know, are there any Democrats that espouse conservative values? If there were I would surely have considered them. However, I probably would have voted for Clinton before I would have voted for Sanders, again the whole ideology thing.

Define "conservative values" in context. Would the old "Reagan Democrats" be appealing to you?

 

[The Big Dog]

You're highlighting the wrong part of the definition. You're ignoring the fact that, in the definition, the justification for questioning the consistency is not the consistency of the argument itself but the regulars actions. What was being questioned in the thread was not the arguers actions insofar as they voted for Trump but the arguer's justification for those actions.

jesus. No they weren't.

They were explaining why Hillary was untrustworthy.

Everything else was a tu quoque fallacy as I have so expertly explained.

/not even going to try to explain to you how silly your ridiculously artificial attempt to create a separation between the act and the justification is because we only have so many years left.

 

[Upchurch]

Donald Trump called for ending illegal immigration, including potentially deporting illegals, and instead of debating whether or not that ought to be done, the general reaction was "Racist!"

Wait a minute. Trump wasn't called "racist" for his stance on ending illegal immigration. He was called "racist" for characterizing the Mexicans who come to the US criminals, rapists, and "bringing drugs".

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

He throws that last line in, which mitigates it some, but as an assumption, it suggests that he hasn't actually seen any Mexicans that are good people.

That is why he is called "racist" in relation to Mexicans.