Why do liberals think Trump supporters are stupid?

Nov 2012
10,417
8,571
nirvana
This post is about someone calling people stupid because of who they voted for...... and that is pure arrogance

No. This post is about asking the question are Trump supporters stupid.

It’s a valid question given the 8 years of George Bush and then 8 years of Barack Obama and then voting for Trump given that history.

It’s absolutely a valid question.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,168
Barsoom
UDub states it well when he says "it's BETTER not to attack the character of a person". Of course, it is. But HOW do you separate the two?
Making an argument against the substance of a post rather than the poster should do the trick.
 
Likes: imaginethat
Oct 2010
66,161
26,531
Colorado
Here's the sentence: As I've said before on here, feel free to attack the facts of one's position. But it's better not to attack the character of the person holding that position.

Here's the problem: One's position is inextricably linked to one's character--in all things. UDub states it well when he says "it's BETTER not to attack the character of a person". Of course, it is. But HOW do you separate the two?
Our actions ARE OUR character. Our actions are an outward sign of an inward inclination--our impulses and yes, our weaknesses. It is our actions or inactions that define us because THEY are the visible signs.

Do we defend the character of a murderer? A rapist? How about a cheat--a liar--a con artist?
Do we defend the character of a bystander who watches a child drowning in a lake and does nothing?

We should all be on the same side here---the side that condemns not only the perpetrator but those who stand by and do nothing--those who say nothing, never object and never censure, because they too are guilty.
UDub has chosen that side.
Here's the exchange in context:

Continue to attack the claims, but don’t attack the character. If you tell me I’m wrong, I can blow you off. If you show me I’m wrong, I have to face reality.
Haaa--well now you're being silly. You can blow me off anytime you want. You can blow off anyone, anywhere, anytime. Go ahead. Is that some sort of childish threat like holding your breath?
You've chosen sides, UDub. That much is obvious.
I did a double take on that allegation. Maybe I should let UDub speak, but I took the "you" as a general "you," not you, Clara, and the "I" likewise.

Restated, if you attack a person's character, they can blow that/you off, but if you attack their claims with facts, they have to face reality. I'd say, that's an ideal way of looking at debate because we routinely see facts dismissed, and fairly often see both sides engaging with political rhetoric.

But there's a point UDub keeps making, mostly to deaf ears. Political opponents aren't going away. A terrible shadow hangs over us. You summed it up: One's [political] position is inextricably linked to one's character--in all things. But is it?

George Washington: This spirit [of party], unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

You gotta admit Clara, you are quite passionate. I admire your passion. I'm passionate too. A lot of us are. Washington:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

His words are prophecy for our time. I am shuddered by how accurate he is.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

And that's the danger. Imo, the right started it, that their political opponents weren't merely wrong in their positions; they were evil, e.g. the Moral Majority. However, the left has adopted the same attitude. This is a bigger problem that our political differences. I think UDub sees this. I do too. Think of what we see on DTT, pages and pages of personal attacks that lead nowhere except to the next round of them.

Apology for going on so long....
 
Likes: UDub
Dec 2015
15,107
13,980
Arizona
Here's the exchange in context:





I did a double take on that allegation. Maybe I should let UDub speak, but I took the "you" as a general "you," not you, Clara, and the "I" likewise.

Restated, if you attack a person's character, they can blow that/you off, but if you attack their claims with facts, they have to face reality. I'd say, that's an ideal way of looking at debate because we routinely see facts dismissed, and fairly often see both sides engaging with political rhetoric.

But there's a point UDub keeps making, mostly to deaf ears. Political opponents aren't going away. A terrible shadow hangs over us. You summed it up: One's [political] position is inextricably linked to one's character--in all things. But is it?

George Washington: This spirit [of party], unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

You gotta admit Clara, you are quite passionate. I admire your passion. I'm passionate too. A lot of us are. Washington:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

His words are prophecy for our time. I am shuddered by how accurate he is.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

And that's the danger. Imo, the right started it, that their political opponents weren't merely wrong in their positions; they were evil, e.g. the Moral Majority. However, the left has adopted the same attitude. This is a bigger problem that our political differences. I think UDub sees this. I do too. Think of what we see on DTT, pages and pages of personal attacks that lead nowhere except to the next round of them.

Apology for going on so long....
IT, you know how much I respect your opinion and this is no exception. I appreciate your interpretation of the exchanges and I agree, in part, but what you and UDub present becomes a circuitous route with absolutely NO end--no verdict--and historically has become disastrous.
You are right. I am passionate about many things: injustice, cruelty, dishonor, disloyalty. So you can count on my constant RANTS where these things are concerned.
IMO, this issue is no longer about Trump. It's about his supporters. Trump is Trump. Most of us HOPED for a better outcome but feared the worst, which, as it turns out, WAS/IS THE WORST.
When I'm wrong, I apologize and I have apologized to UDub (PM), but I wasn't apologizing for my passion or for my viewpoint because I won't bend on Trump supporters who continue to enable his destructive/immoral/ignorant decisions. I apologized for causing a rift between us. That was not my intention.
Thank you for attempting to keep me on the path. You must feel like you are constantly herding cats! Sorry. Meow.
 
Likes: leekohler2
May 2018
4,792
2,996
Chicago
IT, you know how much I respect your opinion and this is no exception. I appreciate your interpretation of the exchanges and I agree, in part, but what you and UDub present becomes a circuitous route with absolutely NO end--no verdict--and historically has become disastrous.
You are right. I am passionate about many things: injustice, cruelty, dishonor, disloyalty. So you can count on my constant RANTS where these things are concerned.
IMO, this issue is no longer about Trump. It's about his supporters. Trump is Trump. Most of us HOPED for a better outcome but feared the worst, which, as it turns out, WAS/IS THE WORST.
When I'm wrong, I apologize and I have apologized to UDub (PM), but I wasn't apologizing for my passion or for my viewpoint because I won't bend on Trump supporters who continue to enable his destructive/immoral/ignorant decisions. I apologized for causing a rift between us. That was not my intention.
Thank you for attempting to keep me on the path. You must feel like you are constantly herding cats! Sorry. Meow.
You nailed it, and I agree completely. There are lines that should never be crossed, but when they are, you have to stand firm. Trump and his supporters have crossed the line repeatedly. It stops now.
 
Likes: catus felis
Oct 2010
66,161
26,531
Colorado
IT, you know how much I respect your opinion and this is no exception. I appreciate your interpretation of the exchanges and I agree, in part, but what you and UDub present becomes a circuitous route with absolutely NO end--no verdict--and historically has become disastrous.
You are right. I am passionate about many things: injustice, cruelty, dishonor, disloyalty. So you can count on my constant RANTS where these things are concerned.
IMO, this issue is no longer about Trump. It's about his supporters. Trump is Trump. Most of us HOPED for a better outcome but feared the worst, which, as it turns out, WAS/IS THE WORST.
When I'm wrong, I apologize and I have apologized to UDub (PM), but I wasn't apologizing for my passion or for my viewpoint because I won't bend on Trump supporters who continue to enable his destructive/immoral/ignorant decisions. I apologized for causing a rift between us. That was not my intention.
Thank you for attempting to keep me on the path. You must feel like you are constantly herding cats! Sorry. Meow.
IMG_1878.jpg

I respect your opinions as well Clara.

How likely would it be for for a person to listen to something someone had to say if that someone continuously called the person stupid?

Unlikely, and that's the bottom line if the goal is to change minds, strike a mutually agreeable compromise, and come to peace with one another.
 
Sep 2015
9,283
5,182
Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Thanks for proving my point. You are indeed not here to debate or explain your positions. So...why are you here in the first place? Seems like you're missing the point of a political debate site.
The thread as originally posted is a bait post.....and then when the author of the piece contends that Trump is either a NAZI or a white supremacist he losses all credibility, making all the rest of his claims moot[, so what is there to debate then??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dec 2012
19,430
8,313
California
Yep.

Too bad that at this point in time even if Mueller walked off of Mount Sinai with still smoking stone tablets etched by the finger of Yahweh, the report still would be rejected by most if not all Trump supporters.
The point is, Mueller, in over two years hasn't provided tablets proving anything concerning Trump. About all the Liberal-Left has is "if's".