Market politics

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

They very much view it as the lesser of two evils. If he has "not stood up for them", they view that as better than what the liberal agenda has done to them during the Clinton and Obama administrations.


Again, don't shoot the messenger, but if you guys SERIOUSLY want to have conversations with these people (instead of just bash them as "stupid"), you need to understand them better. And they are not as "simple" as you claim. In fact, it is that claim that makes them resent the left so much.

Am I getting through to anyone here, or are we just talking at each other while wearing headphones cranked up to 11?

So now that they've seen the results of his presidency, and the corruption of the EPA, are they still going to vote for him?

 

[bkp_duke]

Trump was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of congress, not foreign collusion.

Thank you for making my point. The ENTIRE impeachment started because of the Russian Collusion lie. When the Dems didn't have the evidence to pin that on him, and because they hated him so much, they voted along party lines to impeach him on the most vague terms available to them that they thought might pass.

So now that they've seen the results of his presidency, and the corruption of the EPA, are they still going to vote for him?

It's the South. What do you think?

 

[jdw]

The utter failure of the media is what's behind a lot of the talking past each other. Virtually all the media is now peddling a narrative and anything that doesn't fit that narrative is either spun or omitted. It polarizes people and causes them to form opinions that come from the spin and omissions. People who get news from only one or two sources are being manipulated.

Viewers of CNN & MSNBC had little idea of the burning and looting that accompanied the recent "peaceful protests" and I'm sure there is the equivalent going the other way.

They incite division and until we find a way back to an objective press, it will continue.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

It's the South. What do you think?

So you're saying our assumptions were correct?

I get your point that Trump appealed to a segment of the population because of what he promised (and being outside of politics, he got the benefit of the doubt), and that's why they voted the way they did. But if they're still voting for him DESPITE all he's done, what does that say about their actions versus their words? Isn't that why they got marginalized, because they've proven to the politicians that they can be lied to, and they'll still support people who throw pretty words at them?

 

[JRP3]

being Christians they are fundamentally opposed to much of the progressive agenda

Which is amusing considering the supposed teachings of Christ. Dude was a hard core socialist.

Your psychological profile of them is wanting, at best.

Environmentally concerned Christians supporting an anti-environmentalist who demonstrates zero Christian values? They do know he's not the least bit Christian, right? He's not even a convincing fake Christian.

 

[bkp_duke]

Which is amusing considering the supposed teachings of Christ. Dude was a hard core socialist.

He advocated PERSONAL charity. Never once did he advocate govermental-level socialism.

You should read scripture more carefully before mis-attributing his teachings.

 

[bkp_duke]

Environmentally concerned Christians supporting an anti-environmentalist who demonstrates zero Christian values? They do know he's not the least bit Christian, right? He's not even a convincing fake Christian.

I've said many times he's not their ideal candidate. But for many, they simply will not vote for a Democrat because of the party line on abortion. They view that, simply, as murder.

 

[wdolson]

In my experience African Americans are taught how to be behave around white people. The reverse is not universal. The denouement varies. One tell is the statement, "You people," as though in some fashion they are different as people. Attempting to unite nuclear peace advocates with local African Americans, that's the opening qualifier by the first white peacencki at a meeting in my own home.

The "you people" thing has always put my teeth on edge. Genetically there is only one race: human.

But people are tribal. I watch a fair bit of non-American television and I've noticed the British will call things racist when someone is saying something about Irish or even Australians. Those are different cultures, but even DNA testing can't find many genetic differences between someone who is Irish or someone from the island of England. I know, I have both ancestry and the only uniquely Irish gene is my mitochondrial DNA. The rest is generic British Isles.

I have a "biased" perspective in regards to doors. I grew up in the south, you were supposed to open them for anyone and everyone, regardless of age / race / color / creed / sex / etc. It was just one of those "pay it forward" things.

EDIT - I still do it in SoCal, and there are times I get some REALLY bad looks for doing it.

I frequently open doors for people and never get bad looks. I'm also equal opportunity about it.

I have been growing curious the past few weeks at the disparities in polling between Approve/Disapprove of Trump's handling of Covid,
Approve/Disapprove of Trump, and plan to vote for Trump or Biden. Looking today at consolidated polling by FiveThirtyEight, 19% more questioned disapprove of Trump's handling of Covid than approve. That shrinks to 12% when poll is overall Approve or not of Trump and shrinks further to 9% nationally on who people say they plan to vote for.

You would think that if you disapprove of his handling of the worst health crisis in nearly all peoples lifetimes, you'd disapprove of him in general! And that you wouldn't want to vote for him come Election Day. I'm interested in others views on why these inconsistencies are so large and what can be done to reduce them.

Another interesting polling chart on FiveThirtyEight compares people's level of concern about being infected with Covid at this point versus concern about the economic crisis. Polling shows that the level of concern about the economy is substantially greater than concern about Covid. That's understandable in the majority of places where covid new case, hospitalizations and deaths are under control or declining from high points. If you think it unlikely you and people close to you will get the virus, attention shifts to businesses going under, workers losing jobs, evictions, etc.

I think it obvious the Dems and allies need to find razor sharp ways to get more people to understand the economic crisis is driven by the terrible Trump administration mismanagement of the nations covid efforts. This totally obvious fact has not yet been hammered home as effectively as it must be.

There are forces out there working on it. The Lincoln Project is one of them. They have said that unlike most campaigns they have worked on, highlighting the weaknesses of the candidate they are going after is a problem of parsing down the mountain and choosing which weakness to exploit instead of trying to find one or two.

If we are talking about dropped sanity, how about a House full of Democrats that insisted on pursuing an impeachment process when the pretense for that (Russian collusion) was based upon completely false and manufactured information (now proven with the admission of an FBI agent in the Durham probe).

The impeachment had no connection to the Russia probe or Russia collusion. Robert Muller's report was quite damning of Trump and Muller laid out a roadmap for impeaching Trump, but the Democrats did not go there. Muller was unable to indict Trump due to the 1973 memo, but he made it very clear to the absolute limit of his ethical obligations as an attorney that he would have indicted Trump if not for that memo. He couldn't come right out and say it because ethically attorneys cannot declare in any way that someone is guilty unless they are charging them with a crime and prosecuting it, or the person has been judged guilty.

But in lawyer-speak he made is abundantly clear that he found plenty of evidence to charge Trump with felonies, if you know the code.

The impeachment entirely stemmed from the Ukrainian phone call in which Trump asked the Ukraine for help in framing Joe Biden in return for US aid. That is bribery under the law. The House Democrats broadened that charge to abuse of power because what he did went beyond just bribery. They charged him for obstruction because of what he did to impede their investigation. In a non-political setting everything he did were felonies.

Adam Schiff has said that he has been approached by Republican Senators off the record who admitted to him that the House made their case, but they could not go against their party. Mitch McConnell refused to do anything more than have the two sides make opening arguments. No evidence was introduced and no witnesses were called. That has never happened in an impeachment, presidential or any other kind (a number of officials have been impeached over the years).

As far as the doctored evidence to get the FISA warrant, it reminds me of what happened during the OJ Simpson murder trial. Mark Furman was shown to have planted evidence and I heard one person observe that Furman tried to frame a guilty man.

The right wing media wants to muddy the waters with conflating Trump-Russia and the impeachment, but they are separate things.

To be clear, the Left overwhelmingly supported it. The Right did not. What did that leave? The middle. And the middle did NOT support impeachment.

There are plenty of stones, on both sides, to toss around in this glass house. Until you get both extremes to sit down and work out problems, instead of tossing stones, this will continue.

And honestly, aside from WWIII or an invasion by aliens, I don't see the left and the right coming together for pretty much anything.

Independents were split about 50/50 in the end.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

Being from the south, I hear (but don't always agree with) many people that feel/believe the progressive agenda is "being forced down their throats". Furthermore, they feel like if they are "Conservative" they are treated like second class citizens. Nothing at all was more exemplifying of this feeling than the "deplorables" comment by H. Clinton in the 2016 race. I would go so far as to say that it was that comment that in and of itself coalesced Trump's base, and likely cost her the election.

There is a victim mentality among that population. It isn't universal, but it is a theme that anything that goes against that population is hailed as evidence they are persecuted. I've seen it for decades, even when Southern politics dominated national politics.

A lot was made of Hillary Clinton's remarks, but she clarified that she was talking about the people around Trump, not so much his supporters in the public. And time has shown that most of the people around him are deplorable people.

Expand your sample size then. My entire family falls under the "well educated" group (Masters or higher for everyone), and every last one of them voted for Trump in the last election.

Simply put, they didn't trust H. Clinton, and being Christians they are fundamentally opposed to much of the progressive agenda (but they are staunch environmental supporters).

There are different types of Christians with different interpretations. Among the teachings of my childhood religion, the only one of them that squares with Republican values is the anti-contraceptive message. The rest of what the Republican party says and does is opposed to Catholic teaching. It's also opposed to the teachings of many other Christian religions.

Republican ideals are inline with the modern versions of religions that evolved out of John Calvin's version of Christianity (though they often ignore some of the key parts of Calvin's theory along the way), but they don't square with the non-Calvanist Christian religions.

Thank you for making my point. The ENTIRE impeachment started because of the Russian Collusion lie. When the Dems didn't have the evidence to pin that on him, and because they hated him so much, they voted along party lines to impeach him on the most vague terms available to them that they thought might pass.

It didn't. And there was ample proof of conspiracy (collusion is not legally defined, the laws are about conspiracy). The Muller report lays it out, but Barr muddied the report's impact with first his own slanted interpretation and then releasing it heavily redacted.

The utter failure of the media is what's behind a lot of the talking past each other. Virtually all the media is now peddling a narrative and anything that doesn't fit that narrative is either spun or omitted. It polarizes people and causes them to form opinions that come from the spin and omissions. People who get news from only one or two sources are being manipulated.

Viewers of CNN & MSNBC had little idea of the burning and looting that accompanied the recent "peaceful protests" and I'm sure there is the equivalent going the other way.

They incite division and until we find a way back to an objective press, it will continue.

I do watch MSNBC some and I read CNN online (as well as consume many other news sources), I have seen extensive coverage of looting and burning on both MSNBC and CNN. MSNBC does clearly lean left on their opining about the news, but they do report the factual news too. Right wing news cherry picks the facts to tell the narrative they want to tell.

There is a book coming out about this. I forget the title at the moment. The number of political books lately has been a blizzard.

 

[JRP3]

He advocated PERSONAL charity. Never once did he advocate govermental-level socialism.

You should read scripture more carefully before mis-attributing his teachings.

Christians don't even interpret his teachings the same way, hence all the various denominations and personal interpretations. That's the "great" thing about religion, anyone can use it to justify anything.

I've said many times he's not their ideal candidate. But for many, they simply will not vote for a Democrat because of the party line on abortion. They view that, simply, as murder.

See above. Not all Christians think the same way. Example:
A Pastor’s Case for the Morality of Abortion

 

[bkp_duke]

Christians don't even interpret his teachings the same way, hence all the various denominations and personal interpretations. That's the "great" thing about religion, anyone can use it to justify anything.


See above. Not all Christians think the same way. Example:
A Pastor’s Case for the Morality of Abortion

The majority of Christians believe that if it written about in the Bible, you are given clear instruction. Others twisting of things I cannot help, but you will find GREAT consensus among Christians about abortion. You, of course, picked an outlier for your point, and not what 99.99% of Christians believe and follow.

But we should probably keep religion out of this thread as much as possible, it's already a hot-bed.

Everyone on the opposite side of what I'm saying seems to want to argue about the message. I'm simply trying to give people an understanding of WHY the Trumpers support him. You can debate the pros/cons of it all you want and and try to pick it apart. It won't change the FACT that Trump has his base locked up, and better than any Republican in recent memory. Those, are the indisputable facts.

 

[JRP3]

You, of course, picked an outlier for your point, and not what 99.99% of Christians believe and follow.

Not supported by actual facts:
"About three-quarters of white evangelical Protestants (77%) think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

By contrast, 83% of religiously unaffiliated Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do nearly two-thirds of black Protestants (64%), six-in-ten white mainline Protestants (60%) and a slim majority of Catholics (56%)."
Public Opinion on Abortion

Agree he has his base locked up, so there is no point in trying to engage with them or reach out. They are unreachable.

 

[jbcarioca]

The majority of Christians believe that if it written about in the Bible, you are given clear instruction. Others twisting of things I cannot help, but you will find GREAT consensus among Christians about abortion. You, of course, picked an outlier for your point, and not what 99.99% of Christians believe and follow.

But we should probably keep religion out of this thread as much as possible, it's already a hot-bed.

Everyone on the opposite side of what I'm saying seems to want to argue about the message. I'm simply trying to give people an understanding of WHY the Trumpers support him. You can debate the pros/cons of it all you want and and try to pick it apart. It won't change the FACT that Trump has his base locked up, and better than any Republican in recent memory. Those, are the indisputable facts.

I am greatly amused when allegedly well-informed, well educated people utter such nonsense. In point of fact my father was an ultra-conservative Protestant minister who approved of abortion in cases of rape and incest. I was educated in that very conservative background and was actually ordained myself although I left the faith soon after and never returned. The denomination in which I was born did not accept those who did not agree with them on doctrine were not Christians, and obviously Roman Catholics could never be Christians.

Because I no longer practice you might dismiss my observations. However I know that assuming anything at all about “the majority of Christians” is fundamentally in error. Christians come in a vast array of different beliefs. Even Evangelical Christians have vastly different beliefs. Take for example Methodists whose only common position is on heritage and Aldersgate. Otherwise they differ on almost everything including even slavery, abortion and women’s rights.

Don’t ever presume to think you or anyone else can speak for “the majority of Christians”. That is possible if one is specific enough about denominational definition, but even there it is high risk.

Frankly I am appalled that allegedly well informed people presume to pigeonhole vast numbers of people in some particular way. That is the stuff of prejudice.
Before I end the rant I should point out that Christians rarely agree about what makes a person a Christian. Nobody can knowledgeably argue otherwise. That being so, what possibly characterizes ‘most Christians’ when ‘most Christians may not agree on what a Christian is?

Finally you might know that Christians don’t agree on what the Bible is, despite some of them saying every word is literally true. Admittedly few of those can read Aramaic, Greek or Hebrew so they could not know even if they could agree on what the Bible is or recognize ancient mistranslations .

Please don’t presume to know what ‘most’ of anything might be without quite solid evidence. That even applies to Trump supporters, some of whom, presumably like Mr. Putin, revel in all the corruption and disarray.

 

[jdw]

...
I do watch MSNBC some and I read CNN online (as well as consume many other news sources), I have seen extensive coverage of looting and burning on both MSNBC and CNN. MSNBC does clearly lean left on their opining about the news, but they do report the factual news too. Right wing news cherry picks the facts to tell the narrative they want to tell.

As long as people are willing to believe that "their" media is telling the truth and all the others are lying the crazy doesn't stop. They are tribalising the whole population. Used to be the difference between left/right was policy, and policy could be discussed and debated. Call someone a racist and policy gets left behind.

And of course it is not a total blackout on riot coverage on CNN/MSNBC but it was minimised and spun - witness the CNN reporter describing the Minneapolis riot as mostly peaceful, while standing in front of a burning building with people looting a target in the distance. Echos of Baghdad Bob reporting.

Even if something is reported, it has a spin - for example the 17 year old kid who shot three rioters (per Fox) aka peaceful protestors (per MSNBC) who was billed as alternately a Proud Boi, then a Boogaloo Boy, then a white supremacist - all before we even knew who he was. Of course on Fox, he was a patriot exercising his right to self defence and the 2nd amendment.

Twenty years ago, the shooting would have been reported with the known facts - the speculation, spin and opinion would not have been there, especially in the very first reports. Bloggers often have more journalistic integrity than some of our media today.

I believe you are deluding yourself if you think only the right cherry picks the facts - they both do it to stay true to their narrative. How much news about how the whole Russian collusion is ending makes it into left media. Do their viewers even know what happened with Flynn or FISA or the FBI forging documents or Obama/Biden/Yates/Powers unmaskings. I suspect not.

To make this relevent to TSLA, how many outright lies and omissions have made it into the media about our favorite car company? Those are easy to catch, as we tend to know the real story ... but what if we didn't? Would we accept that Elon was a con man who stole copper from his own company because "the media" said so or would we dig a little deeper?

 

[bkp_duke]

I am greatly amused when allegedly well-informed, well educated people uterr such nonsense. In point of fact my father was an ultra-conservative Protestant minister who approved of abortion in cases of rape and incest. I was educated in that very conservative background and was actually ordained myself although I left the faith soon after and never returned. The denomination in which I was born did not accept those who did not agree with them on doctrine were not Christians, and obviously Roman Catholics could never be Christians.

Because I no longer practice you might dismiss my observations. However I know that assuming anything at all about “the majority of Christians” is fundamentally in error. Christians come in a vast array of different beliefs. Even Evangelical Christians have vastly different beliefs. Take for example Methodists whose only common position is on heritage and Aldersgate. Otherwise they differ on almost everything including even slavery, abortion and women’s rights.

Don’t ever presume to think you or anyone else can speak for “the majority of Christians”. That is possible if one is specific enough about denominational definition, but even there it is high risk.

Frankly I am appalled that allegedly well informed people presume to pigeonhole vast numbers of people in some particular way. That is the stuff of prejudice.
Before I end the rant I should point out that Christians rarely agree about what makes a person a Christian. Nobody can knowledgeably argue otherwise. That being so, what possibly characterizes ‘most Christians’ when ‘most Christians may not agree on what a Christian is?

Finally you might know that Christians don’t agree on what the Bible is, despite some of them saying every word is literally true. Admittedly few of those can read Aramaic, Greek or Hebrew so they could not know even if they could agree on what the Bible is or recognize ancient mistranslations .

Please don’t presume to know what ‘most’ of anything might be without quite solid evidence. That even applies to Trump supporters, some of whom, presumably like Mr. Putin, revel in all the corruption and disarray.

Whatever you say all-knowing one. You are the expert on everything, so why even converse with the rest of us lowly servants?

This attitude is exactly why the "far right" is so entrenched in their position now. The coastal elites come off as so arrogant and condescending that they have 100% written you off.

 

[wdolson]

The majority of Christians believe that if it written about in the Bible, you are given clear instruction. Others twisting of things I cannot help, but you will find GREAT consensus among Christians about abortion. You, of course, picked an outlier for your point, and not what 99.99% of Christians believe and follow.

But we should probably keep religion out of this thread as much as possible, it's already a hot-bed.

Everyone on the opposite side of what I'm saying seems to want to argue about the message. I'm simply trying to give people an understanding of WHY the Trumpers support him. You can debate the pros/cons of it all you want and and try to pick it apart. It won't change the FACT that Trump has his base locked up, and better than any Republican in recent memory. Those, are the indisputable facts.

Yes, he does have his base locked up, but among the people who claim to be religious it is baffling to people on the outside looking in. Trump manages to personify all 7 of the capital sins:
Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
Pride

At least based on my upbringing, the idea of siding with someone who clearly has no morals nor even attempts to even fake it would be considered joining the wrong side.

As long as people are willing to believe that "their" media is telling the truth and all the others are lying the crazy doesn't stop. They are tribalising the whole population. Used to be the difference between left/right was policy, and policy could be discussed and debated. Call someone a racist and policy gets left behind.

And of course it is not a total blackout on riot coverage on CNN/MSNBC but it was minimised and spun - witness the CNN reporter describing the Minneapolis riot as mostly peaceful, while standing in front of a burning building with people looting a target in the distance. Echos of Baghdad Bob reporting.

Even if something is reported, it has a spin - for example the 17 year old kid who shot three rioters (per Fox) aka peaceful protestors (per MSNBC) who was billed as alternately a Proud Boi, then a Boogaloo Boy, then a white supremacist - all before we even knew who he was. Of course on Fox, he was a patriot exercising his right to self defence and the 2nd amendment.

Twenty years ago, the shooting would have been reported with the known facts - the speculation, spin and opinion would not have been there, especially in the very first reports. Bloggers often have more journalistic integrity than some of our media today.

I believe you are deluding yourself if you think only the right cherry picks the facts - they both do it to stay true to their narrative. How much news about how the whole Russian collusion is ending makes it into left media. Do their viewers even know what happened with Flynn or FISA or the FBI forging documents or Obama/Biden/Yates/Powers unmaskings. I suspect not.

To make this relevent to TSLA, how many outright lies and omissions have made it into the media about our favorite car company? Those are easy to catch, as we tend to know the real story ... but what if we didn't? Would we accept that Elon was a con man who stole copper from his own company because "the media" said so or would we dig a little deeper?

Here is the story on the Kenosha shooting from the CBC yesterday:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kenosha-blake-protests-1.5702383

The facts match what I've read on the American news sources I follow.

CBS Chicago's account was also cited by the BBC's coverage:
Criminal Complaint Against Kyle Rittenhouse Details Prosecutors' Version Of Events In Kenosha Shooting That Killed 2, Wounded 1

It appears to the story here that while there may have been words exchanged, the people shot were all peaceful. After the first man Rosenbaum was shot and killed, several people tried to disarm and detain Rittenhouse and that's when he shot the other people. One only had a skateboard.

I have not watched MSNBC in several days so I don't know what they are reporting, but while this is the most detailed account I have read, it is in line with everything else I've seen.

There are two measures to determine if the assertions in a news story are based in facts or are fabrications. The first is internal consistency. If the "facts" change without explanation, are physically impossible, or are extremely improbable, the claims are automatically suspect. The next level of test is to corroborate sources that are not known to be allied with one another. If the reporting matches on the points presented as facts, there is a good chance that the story is true.

For example one story that does not hold together internally are all the assertions that Barack Obama couldn't be president because he wasn't a natural born citizen. The "facts" backing up the assertion aren't even close to valid US law, they're fantasy laws dreamed up by racists who couldn't stand the fact that the president was black.

Most news stories today, especially anything that relates to politics in the US has two different universes. On the one hand you have right wing media which consists of Fox News, OAN, sites likes Breitbart, the Drudge Report as well as conspiracy laden sites like 4Chan, and the conservative talk radio people like Rush Limbaugh.

They tend to stayed synched with one another. From what I've read the progression of the really nutty stories tends to go as thus
4Chan or other conspiracy site -> Breitbart and Drudge -> talk radio -> Fox

That is a self contained universe. Much of what they talk about in that universe is a separate reality from what exists in both the rest of the United States and the world. The left leaning news does sometimes use loaded terms in their reporting, but strip away the language used and what they report as facts corresponds with what is usually considered neutral sources.

This doesn't include international news sources, which is unfortunate, but it paints a picture of American news sources
Interactive Media Bias Chart

I don't accept any news source below about 32 or 40 on this chart without corroborating the story. Though I do may venture below the 40 line to see what the talking heads are saying about a news story.

I do like the journalism standards of the BBC and other commonwealth government sponsored news organizations (like CBC and ABC). When the US got into the first Gulf War in 1991 I was watching the CBC news out of Vancouver because they reported what was going on without all the pro-American flag waving. I found I had a radically different view of the war than other Americans. For subsequent military operations I got my news online, mostly from foreign news sources again, I saw the situations much differently than other Americans.

 

[eevee-fan]

The Brothers Grimsby (2016)

Donald Trump was in this movie where there was a plot to release a virus to cut down the population.

 

[jbcarioca]

Whatever you say all-knowing one. You are the expert on everything, so why even converse with the rest of us lowly servants?

This attitude is exactly why the "far right" is so entrenched in their position now. The coastal elites come off as so arrogant and condescending that they have 100% written you off.

For sure it is a wise and just description to ascribe a statement that religious views are not monolithic as “arrogant and condescending” just as wise to describe people who understand diverse views as ‘coastal elites’. Sadly popular culture is really encouraging homogenization of diversity while carefully seeking polarization in politics.

Having broad interests and educational background is not a statement of omniscience. Thanks to the internet research is easy, allowing anyone who cares to aid their recall. Since when is doing ones homework ‘all knowing’?

Oops, maybe I missed the point? Am I part of ‘coastal elites’ because I don’t support Trump and do accept diverse views among Christians? If that is it I might as well really make it worse by observing that enormous diversity is present in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. Moslems come in enormous variety just as do Hindus. Whether you choose to reject diversity by asserting bizarre sameness to others is your choice.

I am not smart enough to see the world in binary terms.

 

[bkp_duke]

Oops, maybe I missed the point?

Pretty much. I keep telling you how these people FEEL and their FEELINGS are what is driving their voting behavior. They are not making their voting decisions anymore on primarily logical thought, but because they FEEL a certain way.

You keep telling me WHY they should not FEEL that way (i.e. invalidating their feelings). It's that "you shouldn't feel this why because of X" attitude which keeps them from engaging with anyone on the left. The entire "I'm smarter than you and this is why you should not feel that way" is a major reason they don't want to engage with anyone they perceive as educationally "elite". The WHY to these people is no longer important.

 

[bkp_duke]

Yes, he does have his base locked up, but among the people who claim to be religious it is baffling to people on the outside looking in. Trump manages to personify all 7 of the capital sins:
Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
Pride

At least based on my upbringing, the idea of siding with someone who clearly has no morals nor even attempts to even fake it would be considered joining the wrong side.

And, honestly, they don't care BECAUSE if you look at historical bible accounts, God many times over used "wicked" men to do his work. I'm not defending them, but if you want to UNDERSTAND them, that is their mindset. Even some of the "holiest" men in the bible like David had very sinful backgrounds (murderer, adulter).

They also have LITTLE faith in traditional politicians because they have seen them make and break promises for decades. They view Trump as the "bull in the china shop" and love seeing him not back down in Washington to the career politicians like Pelosi and Schumer. They LOVE seeing him thumb his nose at them and try to go around them to do things with executive orders (even though the smarter ones understand that it is probably unconstitutional).

Remember - the ONLY group with a worse approval rating than Trump, is Congress. And among this group, they are truly despised as "do nothing politicians" that are entirely self-serving.

Not saying it's right, just saying they will forgive Trump a LOT because of this view.


And don't shoot the messenger - I'm just telling you what I hear from friends and relatives you would call his base.

 

[jbcarioca]

Pretty much. I keep telling you how these people FEEL and their FEELINGS are what is driving their voting behavior. They are not making their voting decisions anymore on primarily logical thought, but because they FEEL a certain way.

You keep telling me WHY they should not FEEL that way (i.e. invalidating their feelings). It's that "you shouldn't feel this why because of X" attitude which keeps them from engaging with anyone on the left. The entire "I'm smarter than you and this is why you should not feel that way" is a major reason they don't want to engage with anyone they perceive as educationally "elite". The WHY to these people is no longer important.

I'm sorry if you think that is what I have said. Frankly I keep at this because I think dialogue mostly beats dogma, eventually.
I try to think about what things happen because what happens tends to be more easily understood if one knows why.
In one fo my lives I taught statistics to business people who were consumers of statistical tools but usually did not understand them. I used to say that stochastic models, at their best reflect a passionate search fro causality. Once one finds causality the separation between 'goods' and 'beds' in the resulting stochastic models are lower than they would have been, but they are actually reflecting the best one can do if one does not know 'why'.
In politics it is similar, but much more so. Even you might admit that equivalently educated Southern Baptists are likely to have different outlooks than Jesuit trained Roman Catholics. For that matter a Maronite and a Jesuit tend to have pretty fundamental differences. Among Southerners diversity reigns, and among Trump supporters, as any decent pollster knows, perspectives and opinions vary tremendously across religious lines among the vast variety fo Christians alone.

The preceding paragraph you might even agree with, you'll soon comment, I hope.

Next we have the Trump campaign. Trump branding and Trump political positioning. That is an entirely different issues than is the vat differences among people who support him forgone reason or another. You have often viewed this in the context of "traditional Southern Baptist style" perspective. I put the quotation marks because Southern Baptists have lots of variety too. Still both the origin of that Denomination and its exclusionary heritage yield much of the common outlook you discuss, even to the generalization of "most Christians". After all, to Fundamentalists no others can be Christians. Trump positioning has always, at least since his arrival in active politics, been towards exclusionary rhetoric that appealed to people's fear of 'other' people, specifically Blacks and immigrants. His appeal has always been consistent, whatever has happened to you is not your fault. It's the others who've stolen your American God given rights. That positioning is straight from the 1850's South. Periodically it has been revived and takes hold in specific ways every few decades. Trump's ability to convince insecure people that "only I can 'save' you" appeals to people who see his attacks against the American institutions will end out benefitting them.

All that works perfectly well for many people who value their own personal interest higher than they do those of the country itself. From Larry Ellison, Mike Mnuchin to poor mining families in West Virginia his appeal actually is fine. Many of those know he's conning most of his supporters, he even says that out loud (e.g. the famous "I could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and not lose votes"). Just as with Jim Bakker, George Wallace et al Trump retains support despite proof of culpability in numerous frauds from Trump University, Trump Chicago Tower, Trump Foundation etc the support is based on the conviction that they'll still manage to get something from him.

For those people who have done well with investments,( especially with real property or securities (so long as using 'carried interest' or other such schemes) he's kept his promises. For people who want freedom from tax audits or US Federal investigation he's kept his promises. For people who actually are caught the new Federal judiciary is well equipped to look away, so long as one is careful too choose jurisdictions properly.

With all that those people whose preferences are towards punishing 'those criminals' violently and quickly are in accord with most of what goes on.

It's easy to generalize about who is for and who is against Trump but they are not adequate. Just remember that this is not anything like the Republican Party many of us voted for. That Party is gone. The new one started with TEA (Taxed Enough Already) and suddenly ended out with Qanon. Yikes!

This has zero do do with Christianity and much to do with the sense of alienation that we learned about when we studied the 1930's.