Why you can’t argue with a conservative.

We have all read the Mueller report, watched Michael Cohen testify, we have read all the news reports after Trump associate after Trump associate was arrested, tried, and convicted of felonies. We have seen as he floundered around amongst world leaders that are our allies, whole cozying up to our adversary and dictators. We have seen all the old reports about how corrupt and incompetent he was as a businessman. We watched the video as he bragged about sexually assaulting women. We have watched daily as he says some of the most dishonest and hateful things to ever come out of a president’s mouth. We watched as a dozen professional diplomats testified to Trump clumsily holding up military aid and and dangly a promise of a Oval Office visit, in an effort to force the president of the Ukraine, Zelensky, to make a public statement that Trump could use for personal domestic political purposes.


Yet, when one talks to a Trump supporter, they act as if Trump never did any wrong. That he is the greatest president ever. A real man of the people, although he has never actually done anything for the people. To a rational observer it makes no sense.


But it fits a pattern. On most subjects, things like global warming and the fact that tax cuts for the wealthy don’t pay for themselves and are the cause of wealth inequality. You can see it when violent right wing gangs go on rampages, and they blame it all on the targets of the right wing gangs. You could see it in the way they pretended the testimony of the impeachment witnesses was other than it is. All of the conservatives that I have known throughout my life tend to tell and retell stories that have been greatly modified from the reality from where they sprang.


It it seems so odd to me that people go through life believing things that aren’t so while rejecting the world around them. But I’ve read and seen the studies. 75% of the population can be led to believe things that aren’t true. I’ve seen it happen in real life. It turns out. Orwell didn’t quite get it right. Sure the deceptive language works fine, and I’m sure the threat of torture is a great motivator. It did wonders for Christianity as it spread its “love” across the Americas. But it turns out, the same effects can be had much more subtly.


Peer pressure is much more effective. They didn’t need to torture Wilson to convince him that 3 was 4. All they had to do was bring in a small group of his peers to convince him of it. It is a flaw in the jury system, peer pressure persuades most people.


Memories are an odd thing. Every time a memory is recalled, it is written anew. A thing repeated often enough, without examination can become a memory. Thus a thing that conjures up certain memories but is full of fabrications, soon one cannot tell the difference from what is true, what was experience, and what was fabricated.


It is easy to see where many of the heartfelt beliefs come from. Even though I was raised Catholic and attended a Catholic school, my parents thought it was a good idea for us to attend a Baptist service from time to time. I was always struck, and appalled as it seems in every Baptist service, there is a spot where the preachers has to list all the horrible people that are going to hell. Jews, Lutherans, Catholics, atheists, liberals, communists.... Even at one of my cousins’ wedding. In the middle of all the love and matrimony and vows, the preacher had to take the time to tell everyone how Jews and Catholics and everyone else that believed differently were all going to hell.


The right wing media works in much the same way. Listen to any right wing pundit and a great deal of what they say vis a vis liberals and the left will be mostly fabricated, malicious, and derogatory. You see it repeated all over the internet. Apparently, as can be seen in the many conservative posts, many seem to actually believe what they write is perfectly true, even though it bears little relation to reality.


So when you see a conservative say that all of the witness testimony was just third and forth hand testimony, even though it wasn’t true, they were led to believe it was true, and once in their memories, they cannot see it otherwise. Contrary evidence has little effect because not only had the lie become a memory, but also a bonding with their group. To accept the facts as they are, would require one to abandon one’s social group as well as question the reliability of one’s own thoughts. A bridge too far for most.

 

From the liberal perspective, their baseless assertions of fact are facts for them. The assertion of a crime doesn't factually substantiate that a crime was then committed. The inability of liberals to divorce themselves from that fantasy doesn't allow for a lot of room for discussion.

 

So in trying to demonstrate why you can't argue with a conservative you actually demonstrated why you can't argue with a brainwashed democrat.

"Bragged about sexually assaulting women"
He said "when you're rich you can grab em by the **ssy"...as in a metaphor, doh!

Try not doing everything with a SPIN and maybe conservatives will take you more seriously when you argue with them

 

Both sides do it. They look at political events through their own lens. Surely you can agree with that.

 

What in the heck was that word salad? Seriously. Maybe the problem you're having is not with a large group of people that think differently than you. Maybe your problem has to do with your own ability to communicate.

Can anyone on the right or left make any sense of this sentence?

I doubt it.

Maybe your problem has to do with your own perceptions of the world. You realize that it's not just possible for two people to have two different impressions of an event, but that it's most likely they will be different? What makes you so sure that such a large plurality of the nation's population is seeing things wrong?

 

Why do you think this is a crime? I mean I want you to specify exactly what's wrong with a politician doing something that they gain from politically. Isn't political gain the point of every political behavior? Do people have long careers in politics by doing things they don't gain from politically?

 

Proud skeptics are often just resolutely closed minded

 

LEGAL things, yes,

By your reasoning it's perfectly acceptable for a pol to walk into the polling place with a gang of toughs, go through the votes and remove and burn all those for his opponent. He's just trying to better himself politically, after all.

 

I have but one request. Please stop calling them "Conservatives." They are not. I am a true Conservative. Those who support this man are not true Conservatives and they never were. That's a fact that most are not talking about today. These people for the most part are Right Wing Extremist Anarchists looking for trouble. Period. Many of them are hiding behind real Conservative Values such as the Second Amendment - which is something very Conservative, no doubt. However, that's just a cloak - the dagger comes next because these same people are never heard saying a damn thing about being Pro-Life and stopping Abortion in America - also a very Conservative Value.

So, please. Understand that NOT all Conservatives support this man. We do support a strong Conservative Candidate, however. Unfortunately, the party that is supposed to present to America its strongest Conservative Candidate has completely abdicated its duty in that regard and thus, someone like a Trump, emerges Supreme Leader. No real Conservative is on-board with this man and his antics.

What you are watching right now is the permanent fracturing of what was the Modern Republican Party. This is not being talked about nearly enough in the Media or on Political Forums. It is not being focused on enough. I said, Permanent. That's a huge issue yet to be fully understood in this country. That fracturing will have wide ranging ramifications which will eventually lead to a branching off of several States away from the Union. That will be the Causation behind the Civil War to come. You can count on it happening. Its just a matter of time.

It won't be just one State, it will be several States that coalesce into their own Union. This will present many problems along the borders of those States which are not part of a contiguous landmass of separating Sates. This will create problems with Interstate Commerce. In addition, Federal Funding will be cut-off from those separating States in an attempt to isolate their economy. However, prior to that, Federal Withholding from salaries by the States that separate will be cut-off as well. It will be a mess, but it is going to happen one way or another.

You primarily have the Tea Party to thank for this. They were the group that ultimately brought about the groundwork that would make Donald Trump the 45th President of the United States of America - truth be told. Just don't call them Conservatives - at least not in the true Historical sense.

 

I find this comment curiously lacking a pretty important argument. It infers an argument, but it doesn't make one.

 

Up to this point there was some separation between doing the job, and politics. For instance there was a time when it would have been scandalous to instruct the IRS to target your political opponents. And likewise, international diplomacy would have been entirely about pursing a the foreign policy you considered best for the country.

To me, Your assertion about politicians pursuing their base political interests in every action is like accepting that your investment advisor gives you advice only based upon his self interest. Or a doctor advised surgery because his wife needed a new coat

For me... this is the difference between “good sportsmanship” vs professional wrestling . Professional wrestlers take pride in any advantage gained by sleazy trickery.... sleazy trickery is part of their skill set. Just as Donald trumps supporters proudly point out that he never explicitly asked demanded a qpq in his phone call with Zelensky .... my oh my what a clever guy....when the referee is not looking you can do whatever you want

but I have to admit, that is the direction our culture has been moving for several decades. The old notion that a mans word is his bond Is now just silly. ‘‘Twas not always like that

 

That isn't the issue. No doubt that Trump asked Selensky for an investigation. The doubt is in the motivation for the request. Only trump can answer that so can't prove it was one way or the other. You are impeaching a president with no proof of anything illegal. The house has the power to do that but common sense says it is a bad idea politically.

 

What separation? Politicians are elected to perform in accordance with the body politic. Politicians that act against their constituents don't get re-elected.

A time? Would you re-elect a politician that did this?

How would you know if the politician made decisions that he didn't feel were best for the country? Isn't it more important for the politician to make decisions that YOU feel are best for the country?

In both of your examples, would you use either of these service providers?

 

Thank you for this post and for taking the time to share it.
It's highly unusual to see or hear original thoughts anywhere these days.
In one of your last statements you said...

"To accept the facts as they are, would require one
to abandon one’s social group as well as question the reliability of one’s own thoughts."
I don't think they realize they are not expressing their own "original" thoughts.
They are simply repeating things they've heard or have been conditioned to believe.
A million people don't just wake up one morning with the thought of building a wall
or pulling out of the climate agreement or separating kids from their parents, etc,.
And even if those ideas had popped into their heads, without any preconditioning,
they would have realized they were irrelevant and let them go.

I understand that I am just repeating what you've already said...
just wanted to emphasize I guess.
Thanks again

I just want to add that even Trump is not expressing his "own" ideas
most of the time. He's repeating what he hears from Sean Hannity,
Rush Limbaugh, Fox etc.. He based his whole campaign
on the views of right wing media.

 

The body politic does not much care what happens in Ukraine.
That does not mean it makes no difference

you are certainly correct that from a political point of view, trump will be better off politically if he goes to every foreign nation and insists that smear his political opponents

If he did that, the result would not be what no one would vote for him

Many people would....
Trump would start tweeting that he thought it was terrible that mike blumberg had been evading taxes

It would be if I knew
In this case..
No one should have known that trump was using congressionally mandated foreign aid to smear his political opponents.... and if people do not know, it will not impact their vote except for what they do know... THE UKRAINIANS ARE INVESTIGATING CORRUPT DEMOCRATS

if you do not know, you don’t know
A surgeon would never tell you that you need surgery to buy his wife an anniversary present
He would tell you that in your case surgery is the safest and recommended option

simple question... are there unethical dr and investment professionals?
Are there divorce attorneys that want to drag out the divorce... or pad their billing....
You are saying this sort of thing does not happen because such people would not have clients?

 

Yes yes...
Ubermensch > untermench.
We know. Thanks.

 

The left: We don need no stinkin evidence!

 

But all people are like that. They have their own beliefs about the world, and that's how they have to view it. Could you do any different?

 

Name a Conservative more pro-life than Trump.

 

Fair point, so how do you discern the difference?

 

You?

6 Char.

 

Then why did the legislature approve giving them so much money?

No difference to what?

Are you suggesting that that hasn't been the strategy of every politician ever? Is there even an argument here that it's wrong to do that? I don't see one.

Is it terrible?

So you keep using the word "smear" to imply some sort of motive. If there was anyone else in Trump's shoes, would it be equally valid to think that the motive was to prevent American foreign aid from ending up in a corrupt American's pocket? Why or why not?

So what's the preventative measure? Are you suggesting that the motive for your surgery only exists in the surgeon's mind, or is there some other way to gauge whether or not your surgery is necessary? Actually, forget it. Let's put the strained analogy aside. There's no need for it. You can't read the President's mind. You have no idea what his motive was, and frankly the motive itself doesn't matter. Our system allows the president to gain politically from legal behavior that benefits the American people. What you're trying to argue as illegal, isn't. It's not illegal for the President to ask a foreign leader to investigate crime. Not only is it legal, it's his job, and it's something that the American people want. They want to know if an American politician is involved in taking bribes for access to American foreign aid.

I would think that Democrats of all people would want to know if their foreign aid money is being funneled into the coffers of a foreign natural gas producer. But it appears that they think "orange man bad" is more important. Is that really what their constituents think? The ratings of the last Democratic debate speak otherwise.

 

How is testimony "baseless" when it's supported by written documentation? How is Sondland's testimony "baseless"?

This is very puzzling. Because it sure looks like you're trying to swish a magic wand around to change facts to lies.

 

Sondland has no direct knowledge of the actions the President is accused of.

 

You (the left) cannot successfully make your argument with a Conservative because no matter how tightly you clutch your pearls, we do not fall for it. Feigned outrage may work with your ilk, but to us, we laugh at your sanctimonious nonsense. Sincerely.