Why Do Trump Supporters Act Like His Election Is Certain?

Page 4 of 6 [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,728
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

23 Jun 2020, 3:49 pm

Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
The claim is invalid by default, and without substantiation it's little more than name-calling and moral posturing.


Go on, I'm sure you can support this idea.


The burden of proof is on the accuser to substantiate a claim such as this, not on the defendant to refute a baseless claim.

Without the inclusion of evidence\reasoning to substantiate the claim, it is simply a personal attack designed to silence a person\opinion which the accuser does not like, an act which I believe is not appreciated on this site.


If one has a long history of espousing racist views the poster labelling them as racist doesn't need to provide an essay regarding why they consider that poster racist; their own posting history is adequate evidence.


_________________
All Praise To Athe, The God of Atheism


uncommondenominator
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 280

23 Jun 2020, 7:16 pm

Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
The claim is invalid by default, and without substantiation it's little more than name-calling and moral posturing.


Go on, I'm sure you can support this idea.


The burden of proof is on the accuser to substantiate a claim such as this, not on the defendant to refute a baseless claim.

Without the inclusion of evidence\reasoning to substantiate the claim, it is simply a personal attack designed to silence a person\opinion which the accuser does not like, an act which I believe is not appreciated on this site.


While I agree that the burden of proof does sit upon the accuser, the fact remains that when evidence IS presented, the accused simply cries "I'm being attacked!", or denies the reasoning in some form or another, thus resulting in a new discussion. It's hardly nefarious, since the accused demanded proof to support the accusation.

Equally so, there is nothing that prevents the accused from simply carrying on the conversation without addressing the accusers claim. I see plenty of people on here totally ignore others who call them out on their crap. Pointing out their behavior never seems to silence them. They just ignore the critics.

Additionally, nothing here prevents you from explaining yourself. Nothing anyone says / posts can prevent you from typing a response and hitting "send". It's not like they can keep your posts from being seen. Bringing up something the accused doesn't want to talk about, is NOT the same thing as being "silenced".

There seem to be several people on here that use words they don't fully understand the meanings of. "Slander" for example. People seem to think it means "anything that speaks negatively of me". Which, it isn't. "I don't like you" is not slander. "I think you're a jerk", is also not slander. Even "I think you're a homophobic bigoted racist jerk, and here's why!" is not slander. First all, slander is spoken, in print is libel. Second, it must be demonstrated that the person saying the things knew the statement was false. Now, you can "claim" that the statement was disingenuous, but proving that would be astronomically difficult, since, as has been mentioned, the burden of proof falls to the accuser, so if the counter accusation is that the individual make the claim about you, knowing it to be false, you have to prove that they knew it to be false. If they genuinely believe their claim, it fails the slander / libel test. Third, the comment has to negatively affect the individual's reputation. Not as in, "I don't like being called this, therefore it negatively affects me". It has to be proven that the statements made have created a substantive negative effect on the individual's reputation, related exclusively to the claim made, and not because the accused engaged in further behavior to generate the same opinion again.

But I digress...

Trump supporters act like his election is certain cos The Big Lie works, and because winning bigly is just what they do. Always so much winning. More winning than you can imagine. I've never seen so much winning. Just, winning everywhere. A whole covfefe of winning! It's easier to just act like you're great, than to actually BE great.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,823
Location: Melbourne, Australia

23 Jun 2020, 7:26 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
The claim is invalid by default, and without substantiation it's little more than name-calling and moral posturing.


Go on, I'm sure you can support this idea.


The burden of proof is on the accuser to substantiate a claim such as this, not on the defendant to refute a baseless claim.

Without the inclusion of evidence\reasoning to substantiate the claim, it is simply a personal attack designed to silence a person\opinion which the accuser does not like, an act which I believe is not appreciated on this site.


If one has a long history of espousing racist views the poster labelling them as racist doesn't need to provide an essay regarding why they consider that poster racist; their own posting history is adequate evidence.


In which case, being a subjective claim and made with no evidence supplied, it is simply a personal insult, and should be treated as such.

If a person makes a claim such as this, it requires specific evidence to support it. Failure to supply such evidence (direct quote or via reference to URL) demonstrates that the person having made the claim has been forced into "name calling" as they have realised they are unable to refute their victim's points in the discussion, or that their own "beliefs" regarding the content of the discussion are incorrect, but lack the capacity to accept this fact.

"Racism" probably needs to be added onto "Godwin's law", being that it is used in a similar manner to try and silence people when the person making the claim realizes their "side" in a discussion is losing.

Alternatively, I suppose if a person is throwing the claim around frequently, with no basis supplied for the claim, it may indicate that they do not believe "racism" exists, and so wish to devalue the term, being that it must be meaningless in their opinion, and so needs to lose the status it currently has.


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
“Indeed, you won the elections, but I won the count.” - Anastasio Somoz


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,718

23 Jun 2020, 7:34 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:
There seem to be several people on here that use words they don't fully understand the meanings of. "Slander" for example. People seem to think it means "anything that speaks negatively of me". Which, it isn't. "I don't like you" is not slander. "I think you're a jerk", is also not slander. Even "I think you're a homophobic bigoted racist jerk, and here's why!" is not slander. First all, slander is spoken, in print is libel. Second, it must be demonstrated that the person saying the things knew the statement was false. Now, you can "claim" that the statement was disingenuous, but proving that would be astronomically difficult, since, as has been mentioned, the burden of proof falls to the accuser, so if the counter accusation is that the individual make the claim about you, knowing it to be false, you have to prove that they knew it to be false. If they genuinely believe their claim, it fails the slander / libel test. Third, the comment has to negatively affect the individual's reputation. Not as in, "I don't like being called this, therefore it negatively affects me". It has to be proven that the statements made have created a substantive negative effect on the individual's reputation, related exclusively to the claim made, and not because the accused engaged in further behavior to generate the same opinion again.


If you get a chance watch youtube videos published by a group calling themselves CampusReform. They are made up of conservative republican college students. They interview like minded conservative students from across a range of American college campuses.

One of the interesting common themes with this bunch is the cancel culture and censorship of conservative students. They truly believe that universities nurture leftwing and liberal (I notice many of them can't distinguish between them) staff who brainwash their students. They also believe there is an active attempt to silence their voices. They use the words intimidate, slander and libel without understanding what these words mean.

But (heres the amusing part) they never properly articulate their arguments. Infact despite being well educated and well spoken they are unable to provide any defence on their views why they support Donald Trump?

And is it any wonder, evidence suggests that these very same conservative students are more likely censor their views about race, diversity, equal rights, equal pay, poverty etc, because they know its wrong.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... or/606559/
In Britain this is called the "shy tory factor" where conservative Brits find it embarrassing to say what they really believe.
This is why they lose debates because a lot of they believe is not intellectual.

A lot of these conservative types are akin to nocturnal creatures who do their activity in the darkness. When a light is shined on their beliefs they scurry away back into the darkness and wait for election time.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,352
Location: Long Island, New York

24 Jun 2020, 2:55 am

cyberdad wrote:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... or/606559/
In Britain this is called the "shy tory factor" where conservative Brits find it embarrassing to say what they really believe.
This is why they lose debates because a lot of they believe is not intellectual.

A lot of these conservative types are akin to nocturnal creatures who do their activity in the darkness. When a light is shined on their beliefs they scurry away back into the darkness and wait for election time.

The article did not say conservatives self-censor because they think they are wrong or embarrassed. They do it out of fear of social isolation and disparagement which according to the article has some basis in reality. Also mentioned is the fear of someone filing a complaint against them if they say what they believe.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person. - Sara Luterman


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,718

24 Jun 2020, 3:42 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:
They do it out of fear of social isolation and disparagement which according to the article has some basis in reality. Also mentioned is the fear of someone filing a complaint against them if they say what they believe.


So we are getting closer to the truth. Why do they think they will be socially isolated and disparaged? after all trump supporters think they are in the majority all the time, so why are they scared :roll:



uncommondenominator
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 280

24 Jun 2020, 4:13 am

Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
The claim is invalid by default, and without substantiation it's little more than name-calling and moral posturing.


Go on, I'm sure you can support this idea.


The burden of proof is on the accuser to substantiate a claim such as this, not on the defendant to refute a baseless claim.

Without the inclusion of evidence\reasoning to substantiate the claim, it is simply a personal attack designed to silence a person\opinion which the accuser does not like, an act which I believe is not appreciated on this site.


If one has a long history of espousing racist views the poster labelling them as racist doesn't need to provide an essay regarding why they consider that poster racist; their own posting history is adequate evidence.


In which case, being a subjective claim and made with no evidence supplied, it is simply a personal insult, and should be treated as such.

If a person makes a claim such as this, it requires specific evidence to support it. Failure to supply such evidence (direct quote or via reference to URL) demonstrates that the person having made the claim has been forced into "name calling" as they have realised they are unable to refute their victim's points in the discussion, or that their own "beliefs" regarding the content of the discussion are incorrect, but lack the capacity to accept this fact.

"Racism" probably needs to be added onto "Godwin's law", being that it is used in a similar manner to try and silence people when the person making the claim realizes their "side" in a discussion is losing.

Alternatively, I suppose if a person is throwing the claim around frequently, with no basis supplied for the claim, it may indicate that they do not believe "racism" exists, and so wish to devalue the term, being that it must be meaningless in their opinion, and so needs to lose the status it currently has.


Just because a claim is subjective does not mean the claim is automatically disingenuous. Flavor and taste is subjective, so does that mean anyone who doesn't like your food must be simply hurling insults, since they are after all, subjective opinions? Besides, when evidence is supplied, people just start whining about how they're being "attacked".

"Godwin's Law" is a convenient excuse to imply anything said is merely a hurled insult rather than a legitimate claim, usually bandied about by those who are trying to weasel out of labels they've earned but don't like, and don't want to talk about. People who are in fact kinda racist really don't want to try to prove they aren't racist, cos they usually fail or make things worse, because they are in fact kinda racist, and know they can't disprove it.

Alternatively, you can suppose whatever you want. That doesn't make it true. At best, that makes it an opinion.

Also, it's ironic to reprimand the act of making claims without providing evidence, then follow up by making claims without providing evidence.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,728
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

24 Jun 2020, 4:16 am

Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
The claim is invalid by default, and without substantiation it's little more than name-calling and moral posturing.


Go on, I'm sure you can support this idea.


The burden of proof is on the accuser to substantiate a claim such as this, not on the defendant to refute a baseless claim.

Without the inclusion of evidence\reasoning to substantiate the claim, it is simply a personal attack designed to silence a person\opinion which the accuser does not like, an act which I believe is not appreciated on this site.


If one has a long history of espousing racist views the poster labelling them as racist doesn't need to provide an essay regarding why they consider that poster racist; their own posting history is adequate evidence.


In which case, being a subjective claim and made with no evidence supplied, it is simply a personal insult, and should be treated as such.

If a person makes a claim such as this, it requires specific evidence to support it. Failure to supply such evidence (direct quote or via reference to URL) demonstrates that the person having made the claim has been forced into "name calling" as they have realised they are unable to refute their victim's points in the discussion, or that their own "beliefs" regarding the content of the discussion are incorrect, but lack the capacity to accept this fact.

"Racism" probably needs to be added onto "Godwin's law", being that it is used in a similar manner to try and silence people when the person making the claim realizes their "side" in a discussion is losing.

Alternatively, I suppose if a person is throwing the claim around frequently, with no basis supplied for the claim, it may indicate that they do not believe "racism" exists, and so wish to devalue the term, being that it must be meaningless in their opinion, and so needs to lose the status it currently has.


Dishonestly ignoring a posters history doesn't make it cease to exist Bric. If a poster is consistently racist I'm entitled to refer to them as such. Deal with it.

When it's a poster I respect like cyberdad or goldfish21 I'm more likely to give them a fuller explanation of what was problematic and how because I have a reasonable expectation of them caring and attempting to do better in the future. There's other posters who are outright hostile and I have no expectation of improvement so why would I waste my time with an explanation when I know they'll just whine and attempt to gaslight?


_________________
All Praise To Athe, The God of Atheism


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,823
Location: Melbourne, Australia

24 Jun 2020, 4:42 am

funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
The claim is invalid by default, and without substantiation it's little more than name-calling and moral posturing.


Go on, I'm sure you can support this idea.


The burden of proof is on the accuser to substantiate a claim such as this, not on the defendant to refute a baseless claim.

Without the inclusion of evidence\reasoning to substantiate the claim, it is simply a personal attack designed to silence a person\opinion which the accuser does not like, an act which I believe is not appreciated on this site.


If one has a long history of espousing racist views the poster labelling them as racist doesn't need to provide an essay regarding why they consider that poster racist; their own posting history is adequate evidence.


In which case, being a subjective claim and made with no evidence supplied, it is simply a personal insult, and should be treated as such.

If a person makes a claim such as this, it requires specific evidence to support it. Failure to supply such evidence (direct quote or via reference to URL) demonstrates that the person having made the claim has been forced into "name calling" as they have realised they are unable to refute their victim's points in the discussion, or that their own "beliefs" regarding the content of the discussion are incorrect, but lack the capacity to accept this fact.

"Racism" probably needs to be added onto "Godwin's law", being that it is used in a similar manner to try and silence people when the person making the claim realizes their "side" in a discussion is losing.

Alternatively, I suppose if a person is throwing the claim around frequently, with no basis supplied for the claim, it may indicate that they do not believe "racism" exists, and so wish to devalue the term, being that it must be meaningless in their opinion, and so needs to lose the status it currently has.


Dishonestly ignoring a posters history doesn't make it cease to exist Bric. If a poster is consistently racist I'm entitled to refer to them as such. Deal with it.

When it's a poster I respect like cyberdad or goldfish21 I'm more likely to give them a fuller explanation of what was problematic and how because I have a reasonable expectation of them caring and attempting to do better in the future. There's other posters who are outright hostile and I have no expectation of improvement so why would I waste my time with an explanation when I know they'll just whine and attempt to gaslight?


I'd suggest a better explanation might help OTHER people understand why you feel the need for such a comment.

Without context, anyone new to the site, or flicking through posts, will only see what would appear to be an insult, which is then likely going to reflect more on yourself than it would on the target of your post...I don't imagine many people will look through a user's posts in the search for explanations.


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
“Indeed, you won the elections, but I won the count.” - Anastasio Somoz


uncommondenominator
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 280

24 Jun 2020, 5:13 am

Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
The claim is invalid by default, and without substantiation it's little more than name-calling and moral posturing.


Go on, I'm sure you can support this idea.


The burden of proof is on the accuser to substantiate a claim such as this, not on the defendant to refute a baseless claim.

Without the inclusion of evidence\reasoning to substantiate the claim, it is simply a personal attack designed to silence a person\opinion which the accuser does not like, an act which I believe is not appreciated on this site.


If one has a long history of espousing racist views the poster labelling them as racist doesn't need to provide an essay regarding why they consider that poster racist; their own posting history is adequate evidence.


In which case, being a subjective claim and made with no evidence supplied, it is simply a personal insult, and should be treated as such.

If a person makes a claim such as this, it requires specific evidence to support it. Failure to supply such evidence (direct quote or via reference to URL) demonstrates that the person having made the claim has been forced into "name calling" as they have realised they are unable to refute their victim's points in the discussion, or that their own "beliefs" regarding the content of the discussion are incorrect, but lack the capacity to accept this fact.

"Racism" probably needs to be added onto "Godwin's law", being that it is used in a similar manner to try and silence people when the person making the claim realizes their "side" in a discussion is losing.

Alternatively, I suppose if a person is throwing the claim around frequently, with no basis supplied for the claim, it may indicate that they do not believe "racism" exists, and so wish to devalue the term, being that it must be meaningless in their opinion, and so needs to lose the status it currently has.


Dishonestly ignoring a posters history doesn't make it cease to exist Bric. If a poster is consistently racist I'm entitled to refer to them as such. Deal with it.

When it's a poster I respect like cyberdad or goldfish21 I'm more likely to give them a fuller explanation of what was problematic and how because I have a reasonable expectation of them caring and attempting to do better in the future. There's other posters who are outright hostile and I have no expectation of improvement so why would I waste my time with an explanation when I know they'll just whine and attempt to gaslight?


I'd suggest a better explanation might help OTHER people understand why you feel the need for such a comment.

Without context, anyone new to the site, or flicking through posts, will only see what would appear to be an insult, which is then likely going to reflect more on yourself than it would on the target of your post...I don't imagine many people will look through a user's posts in the search for explanations.


The supposition that anyone who reads the comment without context will assume it must be a hollow insult is exactly that, and nothing more - a supposition. It assumes that the reason for the comment isn't already visibly obvious. I daresay if someone is acting racist, and someone says "that's racist", observers would not simply conclude it is a hollow insult, on the grounds that they literally just watched the act occur. Now, if the individual is NOT actively acting racist, then that *might* be the case, where a bystander might not understand the reason for the comment. But, if the comment got brought up, it's probably cos they did something to illicit it. Oh, but that's right, the initial supposition is that the insult is merely an insult to begin with. Circular logic at best.



Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

24 Jun 2020, 11:11 am

I still think Trump will win.

He's hurting right now in the polls, but by voting time, America should be on an upward trajectory and I think when Trump gets to grips with Biden on the campaign trail, he'll tear him apart. Trump has a far superior campaign team behind him as well.



Biscuitman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,222
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers

24 Jun 2020, 11:42 am

I think a difficulty for Trump is that he already won while coming 2nd on votes, meaning he got in by the skin of his teeth. He now needs to try and win people over in 2020 that were not on his side in 2016 while keeping hold of his 2016 voters.

If someone didn't want to vote for him in 2016 then what has happened to make them come around to him now? and realistically how many of them would there be?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,600
Location: Stendec

24 Jun 2020, 12:11 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Why Do Trump Supporters Act Like His Election Is Certain?
Maybe in their minds (and Trump's) they're all still campaigning against Hillary Clinton.

That train has already left the station, and they're all still running to catch it.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,368
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

24 Jun 2020, 1:35 pm

Even Ann Coulter hates and calls Trump names.

For me, it's so disgusting that he gave trillions in bailouts to rich people.

He bailed out mega rich people who own hedge funds.

He gave handouts to mega-wealthy companies.

Trump has always been disgusting, however, I was willing to look the other way for tax cuts, however, I am filled with a vile feeling when I think of him now.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,391
Location: Reading, England

24 Jun 2020, 2:08 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
Even Ann Coulter hates and calls Trump names.

For me, it's so disgusting that he gave trillions in bailouts to rich people.

He bailed out mega rich people who own hedge funds.

He gave handouts to mega-wealthy companies.

Trump has always been disgusting, however, I was willing to look the other way for tax cuts, however, I am filled with a vile feeling when I think of him now.

A bailout is just a really big tax cut.



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,368
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

24 Jun 2020, 2:11 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Even Ann Coulter hates and calls Trump names.

For me, it's so disgusting that he gave trillions in bailouts to rich people.

He bailed out mega rich people who own hedge funds.

He gave handouts to mega-wealthy companies.

Trump has always been disgusting, however, I was willing to look the other way for tax cuts, however, I am filled with a vile feeling when I think of him now.

A bailout is just a really big tax cut.

Right, that did help me rationalize it.

However, it's still a preferential tax cut.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.