BenningRoadSkin

Miami Herald: I’m done trying to understand Trump supporters. Why don’t they try to understand me?

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 

 

At some point we need to get serious about how to address that without breaking the 1st Amendment.  There will always be stupid people, that doesn't mean we should stand by and watch people feed them full of BS. Fox News is as big a threat to this country as any other, yet they get a pass for being a "News Organization".  They are not.  

 

Too many hands on that cookie jar. Not sure how you go about that. Maybe some kind of universal media surgeon generals warning, but would that really matter? Any staunch viewer is far gone, and a "Code red" warning would probably just reinforce their beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 Dems complaining about rising gas prices?

 

:rofl89:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, twa said:

 

 Dems complaining about rising gas prices?

 

:rofl89:

 

Yeah. Complaining about the deficit probably work better. And more honest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

Too many hands on that cookie jar. Not sure how you go about that. Maybe some kind of universal media surgeon generals warning, but would that really matter? Any staunch viewer is far gone, and a "Code red" warning would probably just reinforce their beliefs.

FCC should fact checking organizations claiming to be legit TV News stations or Feds should create an agency just for that.

 

I don't think you could gather the resources to fact check everyone, but starting with TV would go a long way.  Fine the F out of them for every false claim, then make it public records on a government website for everyone to see, like a running list.  As much as I know this would help with Fox News, I want someway to force CNN to emphasize being right over being first (that may be out of scope, but I'm really getting tired of them doing that).  News Organizations should be allowed to challenge any fine, they should be given a chance to dispute first or correct themselves before it becoming public record as a violation (violations challenged should be noted that way as well).

 

FB and Twitter need to step their game up in regards to fake news flowing all over the place, FB is trying, but since Internet is too large to keep up with, we need to hold our platforms accountable when Fake News is obvious and malicious.

 

Just an idea...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that sounds great.  Problem is the 1st is supposed to be a check on the government.  If you let the gov find a way to regulate the 1st, then what is the point?  

 

 

***I say this as someone who wants more restrictions on the 1st.  A "truth" clause if you will.  My point is just to see how you will sell it to the people.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I get that sounds great.  Problem is the 1st is supposed to be a check on the government.  If you let the gov find a way to regulate the 1st, then what is the point?  

Government has the right to charge you with lying in multiple occasions and situations.  The question is does the 1st amendment protect the news organizations from having to tell the truth as part of free speech?  I want to see that in SC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, tshile said:

 

There's a lot of this I've been hearing over the last few years... people on the right who **** about immigration issues, that own businesses, ****ing about how they can't find anyone to fill the jobs. So they're behind on work. Or ****ing about how the price of things are going up, because their suppliers can't find workers.

 

Or, ****ing about the weather (in ways the climate scientists tell us are the results of global warming) and you can discuss it with them for an hour and get them to agree with it all - so long as you don't say "global warming" or "climate change."

 

How their brains have been programmed is quite interesting. They're capable of understanding the arguments, but once they hear a keyword their brain goes into frenzy. If you tread lightly you can have a lot of fun manipulating them.

They can be funny, sure, but the question is how do you get them to vote their interests?

 

Do they even understand their interests?  In fairness, their interests are likely tied to complex issues that sometimes might be legitimately hard to fully grasp, at the same time, the mental blockades they've put up have created a scenario where for tens of millions of Americans, I am doubtful they can even be made to understand their own interests no matter how well explained matters are and of course that bars them voting their interests (at least on purpose).

 

And if they can't even understand their own interests and won't vote their interests, then what is to be done?

 

I honestly don't think there's a path back for most of them.  The opportunities to turn back have been many and if you haven't taken one yet, you almost certainly won't now.

 

The focus at this point has to be on the moderates across the middle of the spectrum.  The people who don't like Trump, per se, but are also not doing particularly deep analysis of issues and so are often misled.  Reaching them is still hard.  This is where I think Dems need to do a better job of not just highlighting the negative of Trump, but pivoting and outlining the positive of the opposite.  Of course, in this era of soundbites, I realize that's still a tough thing to do, as generally the moment your first part is over, attention has been lost.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I have no idea what to do about cable news and propaganda. No matter what, any action infringes heavily on the first.

 

About the only thing i can think of is a labeling clause,, if you are a propaganda network, you can't call yourself 

news'..  but then, good luck proving the difference to satisfy a court while not trampling all over the first.

The individual is responsible for this. Knowing reality and acting accordingly. 

In this we fail.

 

~Bang

 

 

Edited by Bang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada banned Fox because they are NOT a news organization. And they're not sorry about it. 

The "nicest" country also has the biggest balls. Who knew?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, twa said:

 

 Dems complaining about rising gas prices?

 

:rofl89:

Yeah that’s so nuts that Dems would care about paying too much for gas. Ohhhh I get it you think all Dems are Left Coast Environmental Nazis...yeah see that’s stupid. But understandable that YOU would make that “mistake”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, twa said:

 

 Dems complaining about rising gas prices?

 

:rofl89:

Yeah that’s so nuts that Dems would care about paying too much for gas. Ohhhh I get it you think all Dems are Left Coast Environmental Nazis...yeah see that’s stupid. But understandable that YOU would make that “mistake”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Yeah that’s so nuts that Dems would care about paying too much for gas. Ohhhh I get it you think all Dems are Left Coast Environmental Nazis...yeah see that’s stupid. But understandable that YOU would make that “mistake”.

 

Hilarious, not nuts. :rofl89:

 

This is nuts, and par for the Dem's course.

 

Quote

 

https://texasmonitor.org/city-of-austin-one-of-many-sucked-into-biomass-plant-money-pit/

 

For almost six years, Austin Energy customers have been paying about $54 million a year for a $128 million power plant they also paid for that isn’t producing energy.

Nearly two years ago, the city of Austin hired a staff of attorneys to see if Austin Energy could get out from under a 20-year contract that even supporters of the wood-burning power plant came to see as a terrible deal for utility customers..

.

 

With the steep decrease in natural gas prices, biomass energy deals like Austin’s have become albatrosses for government officials in many cities across the country.

More than half of the 50 biomass power plants in California are not operating and more are expected to be idled as utilities decline to renew their contracts.

Last year the Minnesota legislature passed a bill that allowedXcel Energy to tap clean energy development funds to pay off contracts and shut down three biomass plants. An Xcel spokesman estimated utility ratepayers would save almost $700 million over the next 11 years by paying the biomass plant operators off.

The City Council in Gainesville, Florida solved its biomass plant problem this past November by buying the Gainesville Renewable Energy Center, valued at $450 million, for $754 million and another $400 million in interest over the 30 years it will take to pay it off.

The purchase was one of the most expensive in city history.

Unlike Austin, Gainesville’s elected officials had tied utility customers to a guaranteed contract for 30 years at a cost of about $70 million a year. Gainesville paid for its $120 million biomass plant with a grant from the U.S. Treasury Department.

City officials there estimate savings of $768 million over what would have been the remaining term of the contract. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bang said:

I have no idea what to do about cable news and propaganda. No matter what, any action infringes heavily on the first.

 

About the only thing i can think of is a labeling clause,, if you are a propaganda network, you can't call yourself 

news'..  but then, good luck proving the difference to satisfy a court while not trampling all over the first.

The individual is responsible for this. Knowing reality and acting accordingly. 

In this we fail.

 

~Bang

Fairness doctrine is one possible option, but I'm worried it would become a double edged sword.

 

While it could lessen the problem of Fox, there are two major issues I foresee.

1. Media orgs were and would be given decent leeway to present the contrasting viewpoint, so basically we'd end up with a bunch of Hannity & Colmes situations where the chosen viewpoint of the media org beats down some strawman contrasting individual.

2. There are issues where two sides isn't really appropriate.  Like do we need to have the Nazis on when talking about Charlottesville?  I imagine the original implementation has some precedent for this stuff I haven't researched, but I would be concerned about fringe views getting ground using the rule.

 

 

Which is basically to say it probably wouldn't work and we'd be right back here again, without a good solution, so, uhh, carry on...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ethics would help. Some of that "morality" so many of them like to beat me over the head with.

But that's a laugh.

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

To quote the Secretary of Energy:  "Oops." 😉

 

This post illustrates one certain way to “understand” a Trump supporter.  A Trump supporter can not and will not ever admit to having provided information in error.  Their worldview simply doesn’t allow it.

 

OTOH, our beloved, enlightened marydu has no problem offering an earnest, prompt mea culpa.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

They can be funny, sure, but the question is how do you get them to vote their interests?

 

 You can't. And "their interests" may not be what the rest of us think they should be.

 

I know this is hard to understand for a lot of people on the left because they've made it all about racism/bigotry/sexism/etc which makes it impossible (to them) for a reasonable person to think otherwise, but there are people in this country that do not like how the country has changed in the last 15 years (if not longer.) I don't think that's a chance you can force.

 

 

7 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

And if they can't even understand their own interests and won't vote their interests, then what is to be done?

Wait for them to die off and hope the next generation is less... whatever they are.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tshile said:

 

 You can't. And "their interests" may not be what the rest of us think they should be.

 

I know this is hard to understand for a lot of people on the left because they've made it all about racism/bigotry/sexism/etc which makes it impossible (to them) for a reasonable person to think otherwise, but there are people in this country that do not like how the country has changed in the last 15 years (if not longer.) I don't think that's a chance you can force.

 

 

Wait for them to die off and hope the next generation is less... whatever they are.

 

 

Generally when I'm discussing interests I'm more talking about economic interests and adjacent issues than social matters.

 

Now, I fully recognize that social matters may be weighed exceptionally heavily when talking about "interests," indeed, the issue of abortion alone is going to qualify as an "interest" and a total non-starter.

 

However, I do see some rub with non-economic and adjacent interests being key deciding factors.

1) moral standards don't seem to be uniform and indeed people often vote party over their stated morality (Roy Moore, Trump).

2) "economic anxiety" was and is a key supposed factor for voting Trump for many

3) "swamp" cleaning (removing corruption from politics) like morality, tends to have a double-standard.  Scott Pruitt has committed enough ethics violations for ten administrations, and yet, he's actively defended by some and passively defended by others.  Paul Ryan secures 3 million in funding for his party in a strategy that is barely legal and may have been illegal.  Trump is a walking neverending emoluments violation.  And that's like 1/100th of what we could talk about.

 

So on the one hand when we talk about non-economic interests we see double-standards, and on the other hand we have lots of people actively telling us their vote is about economics.

 

So naturally, the path of least resistance is to assume they don't actually care about those things, and are voting for other, less socially accepted reasons.  That may or may not be the case.  Certainly the people themselves don't do themselves any favors when there are opportunities to act on their stated values, interests, and goals, and then do basically the exact opposite.  And not just once, but time, and time again.

 

The crab guy from the tweet is a perfect example.  Voted Trump.  Economic anxiety.  Suddenly there's a lack of workers, something that was basically guaranteed to happen if Trump did what he said he'd do, and the guy is complaining.

 

Based on his own words, his "interests" are economic.  He voted against them anyway.

 

The question now is, how do we get crab guy to vote for, say, Cory Booker, Kristen Gillibrand, or Joe Biden in 2020, over Trump or Pence?  Is it even possible? Can a yes be achieved with policy that satisfies his social wishes and economic wishes (like if he wants reduced legal immigration as a policy from a social perspective, that would surely impact his business from an economic one), or do his interests in different areas contradict each other such that no policy would work?  If such policy is unworkable given his contradicting interests, what interest does he sacrifice?

 

And of course, we are doing this analysis ourselves, but will he do such an analysis?  If his interests are contradictory, does he even realize that?  Can he be made to realize that, and if so, how?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The biggest issue I have with "trying to understand Trump supporters" is why they don't acknowledge simple facts.


When it comes to the unemployment rate. Under Obama it peaked at 10% his first year into office.  When he left office it had fallen to 4.7% 

 

Now we can argue the semantics of how you break down what kind of jobs, part time vs full time, etc etc etc......but I am willing to bet those same issues still exist now and will always be discussed by the opposition party, and rightly so(...although when it came to the GOP, issues like wage inequality, upward movement seemed to instantly disappear from being a concern when Trump won the election). 

 

The bigger point is that there seems to be a disconnect in Trump supporters understanding fundamentally that the unemployment rate had been falling under Obama for a long time, the hard work to right the ship was in place long before Trump even thought to run.  Keep in mind while campaigning Trump also claimed the "real" unemployment number was somewhere around 40% LOL. 

 

There is big difference between an opinion of "Obama seemed to right the ship, but I think Trump's policies will expand the economy even more because of..." compared to living in an absolute bizarro alternate reality where "Obama left the economy in shambles and Trump saved us"  The second of the two is just simply not acknowledging factual information.  

 

So if you ask me to try and understand them, my retort is that I understand their frustration and anger, but I absolutely do not understand who/why it is commonly directed at. 

 

In 50 years from now, when my children's children are reading about Obama in history books, and the emotional triggering of the here & now is long gone, they are going to read about 10% unemployment going down to 4.7% and the noise machine trying to discredit that isn't going to matter because it will be moved on to something else.  For whatever flaws Obama has, history is going to look kindly on him. 

Edited by NoCalMike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

FCC should fact checking organizations claiming to be legit TV News stations or Feds should create an agency just for that.

That's what we need, the government choosing what's true and false.  Hey, Ajit Pai, please fine everyone telling us that Net Neutrality is bad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

That's what we need, the government choosing what's true and false.  Hey, Ajit Pai, please fine everyone telling us that Net Neutrality is bad!

Opinions are not a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.