A Liberals Attempt to Understand Conservative Beliefs

[Checkerboard Strangler]

There is a parable of six blind men and an elephant.

1.The first blind man put out his hand and touched the side of the elephant. “How smooth! An elephant is like a wall.”
2.The second blind man put out his hand and touched the trunk of the elephant. “How round! An elephant is like a snake.”
3.The third blind man put out his hand and touched the tusk of the elephant. “How sharp! An elephant is like a spear.”
4.The fourth blind man put out his hand and touched the leg of the elephant. “How tall! An elephant is like a tree.”
5.The fifth blind man reached out his hand and touched the ear of the elephant. “How wide! An elephant is like a fan.”
6.The sixth blind man put out his hand and touched the tail of the elephant. “How thin! An elephant is like a rope.”

I see this as a metaphor of liberals trying to describe conservatives. All grabbing a piece and declaring with absolute of what it is by just that piece - all wrong because they are unable to see the entirety of what it is.

Good, now flip it 180 and apply it next time you're about to launch into a tirade about "what libruls think".

 

[Sabre]

Good, now flip it 180 and apply it next time you're about to launch into a tirade about "what libruls think".

Sorry, no can do, reason being I have never launched a tirade about liberal think or any other subject as I do not engage in tirades. If you are assuming the post you quoted as a tirade, then we have a different interpretation of the term. But just for some clarification on your proposal check out my response to a similar query, post #32. Perhaps you have me confused with some other poster.

 

[Arby]

I have heard that University Safe Spaces love aroma therapy candles!

I wouldn't know, I've been accused of being an uneducated farmer (among other things) who couldn't afford my sports car on my salary

 

[Todzilla]

I don't like Trump, but he does trigger liberals so he's not all bad IMO.

That's great if your political aspirations for our nearly two and a half century nation is to have so called liberals incensed.

 

[Todzilla]

I listen to conservative radio. These people think liberals are essentially Stalin. So to them, it's a choice between a corrupt Trump and Stalin. I guess I would pick Trump over Stalin too.

But that's the mentality we're talking about. They have so entirely demonized Democrats and liberals that Trump's corruption is tolerable compared to the alternative -- *gasp* liberals.

It's particularly interesting since, on a global scale, American liberals are middle to right of the spectrum.

 

[Todzilla]

Yes. That is not to say I think they are false rather misleading as they were politicalized similar to reports used to justify the Iraq war. Certianly worthy of further investigation but not actionable moves just like in that case.

Motive for IntelCom being two fold:
1. Hinder Wikileaks [who I believe a whistle blower organization who released leaks not hacks]
2. Justify further funding and power: foreign actors all do activities during an election(e.g. RT). It's a real security concern, however, I don't even think Russia is to the levels of the Ukraine, let alone countries like China, Israel or Saudi Arabia.Why the magnifying glass there when there has yet to any report showing out of scope influence or scale[slightly increased if you think they are the source for wikileaks]. I suppose you could argue their more of an Enemy, being less connected economically/politcally and thus having to most to gain with a weaken US, but that's not exactly true considering their current abiity to expand influence.


To date I have seen less connections than to most politicians, especially, say Hillary Clinton. I have seen no damning meeting, connection nor seen moves by Muller which would indicate he believes these connections were nefarious in a way supporting that narrative.


Jimmy Dore is quite far left. He hates Trump in every way. He has alway doubted the same narrative. Is he crazy?


Fair, his priority set in my view doesn't fit either the modren conservative tent based on principles nor the modren democrats, and in that case even less so...your probably right though and I should say populist conservatives.

Again, thanks for articulating your position clearly. What you're saying, that the intelligence communities are making up conspiracy stories out of whole-cloth to advance a political agenda is pretty shocking - a deeply cynical viewpoint. And it suggests our country is deeply corrupt, maybe irretrievably corrupt. Do you not think it's more than just possible that Vladamir Putin and his GRU agency would try to infiltrate our election processes through the myriad methods described by intelligence agencies, journalists and independent contractors?

If you think it's a huge conspiracy, upon what facts do you base this opinion?

 

[MrWonka]

Yes, that is how group mind think usually displays itself

Make up your mind. Are liberals group thinkers or are they each forming distinct beliefs about them because they're not examining the whole? You don't get to have it both ways.

Had you quit before you got to this you might have had a halfway decent reply, but you blew it. You do realize racism comes in all colors, right? I find your avatar interesting, you might consider following it.

You don't seem to understand what racism is or how it works. Go pick 1000 Trump voters at random from any one of his rallies. I can assure you that 85-90% of Trump supporters picked at random will, in fact, fit the description I gave almost verbatim and you know it.

You see, Racism would be if I said something like "all white people voted for Trump." As I am a white person myself I can tell you with certainty that is not true. Please try and educate yourself on what racism and bigotry actually are before commenting on it.

 

[OscarLevant]

Nah, we just have a sense of humor. It's funny watching you liberals relying on play doh, coloring books and therapy pets, among a host of excuses why Hillary lost.

Incompetent rebuttal

 

[OscarLevant]

I listen to conservative radio. These people think liberals are essentially Stalin. So to them, it's a choice between a corrupt Trump and Stalin. I guess I would pick Trump over Stalin too.

But that's the mentality we're talking about. They have so entirely demonized Democrats and liberals that Trump's corruption is tolerable compared to the alternative -- *gasp* liberals.

I've just throw up my hands shrug my shoulders and conclude that most Republicans are stupid. The era of the William Buckley Republicans is dead

 

[Arby]

Incompetent rebuttal

My apologies for not making it simple enough for you to comprehend.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

One of the main reasons I joined this forum is to better understand conservatives, particularly those who continue to support Mr. Trump.

Is it true Trump supporters believe:

• Mueller is driven primarily, if not solely by partisan motives
• The intelligence community is in the bag for Democrats
• Mr. Trump is getting rid of corruption in Washington
• There is nothing wrong with wanting to retain business interests while being President
• Even if Mr. Trump was negotiating a business deal with Russians while running for President, that's just business
• America is now respected, no longer reviled as it was during the Obama Presidency
• Mr. Trump's gut is superior to a bunch of climate nerd scientists' science
• There's nothing wrong with getting along with Putin. As a matter of fact, it's a plus
• Mr. Trump got the best of Kim Jong Un
• There's nothing wrong with the ever changing positions Trump takes on the Mueller findings
• Federal Election laws are a joke and breaking them is a "process crime."
• Mr. Trump is "the least racist person there is" and a strong supporter of women
• Mr. Trump hires the best people to be in his administration
• Mr. Trump's transgressions, if real, are no worse than perpetrated by Democrats
• The Democrats are influencing the justice department and intelligence community by setting "perjury traps" and pressuring people like Cohen, Papadapoulus, Flynn and others into making up fake stories that implicate Mr. Trump
• Mr. Trump, as President, should never have to face legal charges

This is what I'm concluding are some of his supporters core beliefs. Trump supporters, am I correct? Did I leave anything out.

There's on you seem to have left out that I've never understood. The idea that Trump is some kind of great patriot. Reason? The only one articulate seems to be that he "respects the flag/anthem". Never mind he chose to avoid serving his country based on laughable deferments. (Bone spurs - he can't remember which foot.)

 

[MrShangles]

Ahh yes, here we go again with the uneducated rural folks crap.
All we rural folk have to do is stop trucking food into your big cities,
that would quickly turn you liberals into sewer rats.

Or stop sending farm grown foods


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MrShangles]

Make up your mind. Are liberals group thinkers or are they each forming distinct beliefs about them because they're not examining the whole? You don't get to have it both ways.



You don't seem to understand what racism is or how it works. Go pick 1000 Trump voters at random from any one of his rallies. I can assure you that 85-90% of Trump supporters picked at random will, in fact, fit the description I gave almost verbatim and you know it.

You see, Racism would be if I said something like "all white people voted for Trump." As I am a white person myself I can tell you with certainty that is not true. Please try and educate yourself on what racism and bigotry actually are before commenting on it.

It’s easy to define racism, if you have a different opinion than liberals then guess what you’re racist. Easy peasy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Arby]

Or stop sending farm grown foods


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those too. What would the vegans do :lol:

 

[Mach]

Absolutely, I totally do not understand the way the liberal mind works, if I were trying to describe what I think constitutes the liberal make up then I would be one of the 6 six men and an elephant myself. So I try to avoid such all-encompassing generalizations.

Not trying that hard, in this very thread:

Anyone can trigger liberals with just a few words, it does not take a Trump to do it.

See, what we're really associating with Trump supporters is none of that list per se, or rural this or that. It's lack of ethics with regards to politics..as a "group". Individually I'm sure there are some fine people. On other issues they may exhibit rudimentary ethics. But where it counts on politics, it's "ends justify the means". i.e. we make the rules up to suit our needs.
Everyone one of the listed items in the OP is likely derived from that. Whatever is needed at the time, they are willing to do/say.

 

[JustHanging]

More like: anyone can trigger a few liberals, to trigger them all takes Trump-like talent.

Not many are willing to pull a Trump and publicly support the KKK and swastika carrying, Nazi slogan chanting, Neo Nazis, saying some are "very fine people." LOL, yeah, that kind of "talent" is usually going to trigger everyone.

Well, everyone except the majority of Trump's base. They're going to support Trump by denying it happened, or making excuses for it.

 

[Deuce]

I don't like Trump, but he does trigger liberals so he's not all bad IMO.

Research shows a great deal of Trumpism is enjoying the suffering of those they perceive as enemies. That is the "platform."

 

[JustHanging]

Like when all the liberals lost their minds that Starbucks used a plain red cup around Christmas time!

Funny, I remember when "all the (Conservative Christians) lost their minds because Starbuck's holiday cups weren't Christian enough!"

Oh, and because their holiday cups had a "gay agenda".

Starbucks Is Criticized for Its Holiday Cups. Yes, Again.
Starbucks has produced holiday cups for 20 years. Some have come and gone with little commotion, but others have drawn the ire of conservatives for what some have seen as a secular design scheme that failed to show proper respect for Christianity.
...
The conservative site The Blaze also waded in, saying Starbucks had launched a “gay agenda campaign.”

 

[JustHanging]

Research shows a great deal of Trumpism is enjoying the suffering of those they perceive as enemies. That is the "platform."

The funny thing is a lot of them now regard Canada as an enemy. And our "suffering" entails living a pretty great life, with better healthcare, a better education, less violence, less hatred, more freedom, and on and on. Oh woah is us!

 

[Sabre]

Make up your mind. Are liberals group thinkers or are they each forming distinct beliefs about them because they're not examining the whole? You don't get to have it both ways.

You don't seem to understand what racism is or how it works. Go pick 1000 Trump voters at random from any one of his rallies. I can assure you that 85-90% of Trump supporters picked at random will, in fact, fit the description I gave almost verbatim and you know it.

You see, Racism would be if I said something like "all white people voted for Trump." As I am a white person myself I can tell you with certainty that is not true. Please try and educate yourself on what racism and bigotry actually are before commenting on it.

Where to start? I guess it would be the part about making up my mind, can't have it both ways, I am sure that meant something in your mind but does not register with me.

Racism: you quite often refer to white racism yet you state you are white, hate yourself much? How about off the wall statements like "Pretty much entirely uneducated rural white racist xenophobic sexist gun crazy religious extremists." where you demean basically all whites who live in rural America with all kinds of derogative adjectives? Rural America is the backbone of America!

You say I should educate myself and state you are an educator, first my education was at M.I.T., perhaps you have heard of it. Second, the part of you teaching students is disturbing to me, with the outlandish comments, bigotry and bias you espouse in your posts I fear for the damage being done to young minds. Given the posts of yours I have read I can't say you are the last person I would take advice on educating myself from but, are certainly close enough for you to see the bottom of the list.

For my tastes, you are too full of yourself and it is a waste time reading such drivel, so I will say auf Wiedersehen!

 

[Conaeolos]

What you're saying, that the intelligence communities are making up conspiracy stories out of whole-cloth to advance a political agenda is pretty shocking - a deeply cynical viewpoint. And it suggests our country is deeply corrupt, maybe irretrievably corrupt.

Not necessarily. Since their founding the US Intelligence community has been caught later having publicly lied to the American people including congress to further their own agenda or that of political actors. This is unfortunately standard practice in espionage as deception is their very business. It doesn't make every conspiracy true, it merely raises a skeptical context in evaluating statements by these agencies or releases they make in the media.

In a court case it would be like have an involved known liar with mixed motives as your witness; it's not meaningless(as they do know the truth) but that doesn't make it enough without corroboration.

Do you not think it's more than just possible that Vladamir Putin and his GRU agency would try to infiltrate our election processes through the myriad methods described by intelligence agencies, journalists and independent contractors?

I think the motive is there so it is plausible. It would however not be easy and there is just no evidence or reasonable suspicion that it happened. It somethign I expect to hear from an Alex Jones.

Keep in mind: Russia has a foreign policy pushing efforts like RT [benign], many online spam & piracy operations are located in Russia, and there is business\politics that takes place between the two countries.

So, finding nothing is not the standard. We are looking for a significant amount of activity or suspicious activity.

If you think it's a huge conspiracy, upon what facts do you base this opinion?


First, since you're not even skeptical. I highly suggest reading or watching a clip about the topic from a liberal anti-trump skeptic. Here is a recent Jimmy Dore clip he did on the google testimony[13min]. Hopefully, at least makes you a little more skeptical. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emxUdrVVR8s

1. I followed the MAGA Movement and am quite familiar with the main cheerleaders, none of those were linked to Russia. Further, every number released on the scale of this activity is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of even one semi-popular social media star. Thus there is absolutely no technical proof of a huge influential Russian source.
2. RT wasn't pro-trump. It was slightly less biased coverage by having multiple opinions and mostly focused on third-parties. So higher viewers is not suspicious considering higher interest in the third-parties.
3. I actually follow people who believe pizza-gate, hillary-health ect they certainly qualify as conspiracies, but do not come from Russia, but in those two examples started with Epstein case & Hillarys history with falling.
4. I specialize in analytical systems. There is no possibility without the DNC Servers etc intelligence could know who hacked the DNC.
5. There were two different releases, the leaks from Wikileaks and a smaller black-net release. One is unlikely to prove source of one let alone they are from the same. All evidence given is weak and has come from the black-net release.
6. Wikileaks has not been shown to be a Russian front. No one is questioning their accuracy, and they have made emphatically clear these were leaks from the DNC not from hacks or from Russia.
7. The Trump investigation, which started as a spy operation during the campaign, used the Steel dossier unvetted against procedures. That is FISA was applied by oppo research paid for by Clinton and tied to a format known to be used in this way in the past[via claims by Fusion GPS]. The Steel dossier has been shown to be false in multiple ways and likely was created to justify spying.
8. Multiple intel members involved have resigned or been fired and made grossly anti-trump statements post showing a large degrees of defensiveness, hate and bias.
9. Leaks and pleas out of Muller investigation into the matter have shown no suspicious activity between the trump campaign and Russia. All Russia connections have been benign and crimes unrelated. In some cases the Russians named have even stronger connections to aforementioned Steel Dossier creator Fusion GPS making it even more suspect.

Want me to go on? Or expand on any one point with sources?

 

[ultmd]

So, finding nothing is not the standard. We are looking for a significant amount of activity or suspicious activity.


First, since you're not even skeptical. I highly suggest reading or watching a clip about the topic from a liberal anti-trump skeptic. Here is a recent Jimmy Dore clip he did on the google testimony[13min]. Hopefully, at least makes you a little more skeptical. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emxUdrVVR8s

1. I followed the MAGA Movement and am quite familiar with the main cheerleaders, none of those were linked to Russia. Further, every number released on the scale of this activity is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of even one semi-popular social media star. Thus there is absolutely no technical proof of a huge influential Russian source.
2. RT wasn't pro-trump. It was slightly less biased coverage by having multiple opinions and mostly focused on third-parties. So higher viewers is not suspicious considering higher interest in the third-parties.
3. I actually follow people who believe pizza-gate, hillary-health ect they certainly qualify as conspiracies, but do not come from Russia, but in those two examples started with Epstein case & Hillarys history with falling.
4. I specialize in analytical systems. There is no possibility without the DNC Servers etc intelligence could know who hacked the DNC.
5. There were two different releases, the leaks from Wikileaks and a smaller black-net release. One is unlikely to prove source of one let alone they are from the same. All evidence given is weak and has come from the black-net release.
6. Wikileaks has not been shown to be a Russian front. No one is questioning their accuracy, and they have made emphatically clear these were leaks from the DNC not from hacks or from Russia.
7. The Trump investigation, which started as a spy operation during the campaign, used the Steel dossier unvetted against procedures. That is FISA was applied by oppo research paid for by Clinton and tied to a format known to be used in this way in the past[via claims by Fusion GPS]. The Steel dossier has been shown to be false in multiple ways and likely was created to justify spying.
8. Multiple intel members involved have resigned or been fired and made grossly anti-trump statements post showing a large degrees of defensiveness, hate and bias.
9. Leaks and pleas out of Muller investigation into the matter have shown no suspicious activity between the trump campaign and Russia. All Russia connections have been benign and crimes unrelated. In some cases the Russians named have even stronger connections to aforementioned Steel Dossier creator Fusion GPS making it even more suspect.

Want me to go on? Or expand on any one point with sources?

:roll:

I believe he asked you for facts, didn't he?

In response to the request for facts to back up your previously expressed opinions, you've just just posted MORE of your own personal opinions and analyses, along with a single link from a comedian (Jimmy Dore) with a Youtube channel. Who cares what "Jimmy Dore" thinks? Moreover, why should anyone give credence to what you think, if you cannot support your opinions with FACTS?

So...Umm...yes, I think you should probably go ahead and "expand" on your points with the specific sources you have offered.

I think your "sources", such as they even exist, will help shed more light on your mindset. But, at least at this point, you're coming across as a delusional Trump acolyte.

 

[Conaeolos]

:roll: I believe he asked you for facts, didn't he?

Sure, but as has been said multiple times the problem isn't with the facts. We agree on the facts. You don't think two people can't come to different conclusions based on the same facts? Now, I may know some he doesn't or he may know some I don't, but based on conclusions alone how am I suppose to determine where that might exist?

Step one is determining where our analysis departed.

You've just posted a bunch of your own personal opinions and analyses

Correct 9 areas where I have found the two narratives departing.

along with a single link from a comedian (Jimmy Dore) with a Youtube channel. Who cares what "Jimmy Dore" thinks?

As stated for the purposes of getting one to feel more skeptical of his postion before reading more. I used Jimmy Dore, because he is someone I know and follow who is both anti-trump and who still doesn't believe this Russia non-sense. I am obviously come off less trustworth as I could be dismissed as just biased for Trump. You don't think feelings are apart of why we disagree?

2nd, I dare you to watch that clip and not at least be a little more skeptical if you beileve the Russia non-sense.

So...Umm...yes, I think you should probably go ahead and "expand" on your points with the specific sources you have offered.

If I wanted to write a book expanding on all those points that's what I would have posted. I gave a short list, from the top of my head, so a skeptical reader could zoom in on the ones you/he might find damning to their own narrative if proven. I am happy to expand and lookup sources only if it would be meaningful. In many cases the facts are well known.

I may enjoy debate and forum posting. What I do not enjoy is wasting my time. I see the same, off the top of ones head, statements here all the time. You know what I do if I find one curious. I research it to know what they are talking about. You should try it sometime. To debate, you should know how to argue both sides.

You're coming across as a delusional Trump acolyte.

Your just seeing what you want to see. If you had any idea what I was talking about you could point out where reality stops and delusion begins.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Research shows a great deal of Trumpism is enjoying the suffering of those they perceive as enemies. That is the "platform."

You understand very little.

 

[Bullseye]

Research shows a great deal of Trumpism is enjoying the suffering of those they perceive as enemies. That is the "platform."

You mean like the champagne and caviar and wild screams of "we won, Trump's toast" that broke out in Democrat headquarters across the country on election night? :shock: