Yep, sure looks like they're only interested in making sure those who support Trump now don't later try to "get away" with claiming they never supported Trump.
They’ve got a list! They’re as sad to see Trump go ad the MAGAs.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
I find it Rich that folks think the Democrats should not gloat and rub it in that Trump lost when Trump and his followers have been doing the same goddamn thing the last 4 years. Slogans like "Get over it! Trump won!" "Trump 2020! Make Liberal's Cry Again!" "SnowFlakes!" etc.
I mean if a likeable Republican would've lost, I could see things differently, but that's not the case. In truth, Trump loves it this way, he loves the division, and I'm sure he's planning to profit in the future from it; Trump News Network, etc. That is, if he can possibly avoid criminal prosecution in the state of NY.
BTW, I could give less than a rats ass about Trumps ego. He made his bed, so.....
(11-09-2020, 04:03 PM)BrownAssClown Wrote: I find it Rich that folks think the Democrats should not gloat and rub it in that Trump lost when Trump and his followers have been doing the same goddamn thing the last 4 years. Slogans like "Get over it! Trump won!" "Trump 2020! Make Liberal's Cry Again!" "SnowFlakes!" etc.
I mean if a likeable Republican would've lost, I could see things differently, but that's not the case. In truth, Trump loves it this way, he loves the division, and I'm sure he's planning to profit in the future from it; Trump News Network, etc. That is, if he can possibly avoid criminal prosecution in the state of NY.
BTW, I could give less than a rats ass about Trumps ego. He made his bed, so.....
What I found just as funny is most aren't gloating. They are relieved.
Trump supporters have tied their own emotions to him and anything negative they are taking personally.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(11-09-2020, 04:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: What I found just as funny is most aren't gloating. They are relieved.
Trump supporters have tied their own emotions to him and anything negative they are taking personally.
Yeah, from what I've seen the non-Trump supporter types are all very relieved and (myself included) were pretty freaked out on election night even knowing that mail in ballots weren't counted yet. People were pretty scarred from 2016, so I get it.
Plus, the non-Trump team isn't gloating because they're pretty aware he's still the president for 71 days and he's either going to run again and/or spend the rest of his life sowing chaos. Trump is sort of like a psycho ex that we just broke up with...it ain't over until he says it's over.
(11-09-2020, 04:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: What I found just as funny is most aren't gloating. They are relieved.
Trump supporters have tied their own emotions to him and anything negative they are taking personally.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not gloating either, just pointing out that people will gloat and I can't blame them if they choose to. This is a deeply divided country and with someone as polarizing as President Trump is, it can really bring out the worst in people. I just hope the President can put the country before his own narcissism and concede and transfer power peacefully, when the time comes, before someone gets hurt. Instead of "Stand back and stand by", his message should be, "Stand down! We fought a good fight and we came up short, but it's time to move on." Do I think that will happen? Well I hope it will but not counting on it.
(11-09-2020, 05:43 PM)BrownAssClown Wrote: Don't get me wrong, I'm not gloating either, just pointing out that people will gloat and I can't blame them if they choose to. This is a deeply divided country and with someone as polarizing as President Trump is, it can really bring out the worst in people. I just hope the President can put the country before his own narcissism and concede and transfer power peacefully, when the time comes, before someone gets hurt. Instead of "Stand back and stand by", his message should be, "Stand down! We fought a good fight and we came up short, but it's time to move on." Do I think that will happen? Well I hope it will but not counting on it.
Trump declared victory over Biden after a fraction of the votes had been counted. Anyone who wants to gloat at him is well within his/her right as I see it. If we expect people to not gloat after that then I guess the world of sports fans need to apologize for laughing at Vince Young for that Eagles Dream Team quote.
Trump pulled the political equivalent of kicking a FG on his opening drive and then declaring that the game was over. Actually, maybe it was a TD...that combo of FL and OH early looked pretty hard to overcome at first.
(11-09-2020, 05:43 PM)BrownAssClown Wrote: Don't get me wrong, I'm not gloating either, just pointing out that people will gloat and I can't blame them if they choose to. This is a deeply divided country and with someone as polarizing as President Trump is, it can really bring out the worst in people. I just hope the President can put the country before his own narcissism and concede and transfer power peacefully, when the time comes, before someone gets hurt. Instead of "Stand back and stand by", his message should be, "Stand down! We fought a good fight and we came up short, but it's time to move on." Do I think that will happen? Well I hope it will but not counting on it.
I get it. I do know people who are gloating. But the vast majority have not been rubbing it in anyone's face as much as they've just be laughing at the over-reactions.
It's very rare in life when the guy who seems to always come out smelling like roses actually loses. It's not a bad feeling, that's for sure.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(11-09-2020, 01:28 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Well, I hope you're right, but I wouldn't give the Dems too much credit considering that before Trump was inaugurated they were calling for his impeachment and then actually impeached him.
"The Dems" is a very broad brush here.
I don't recall anyone of note calling from Trump's impeachment before he had done anything for which he could be impeached. Did some movie stars/celebrities make such statements? Certainly there were people who recognized he would be a bad president and do impeachable things.
Then Trump was actually impeached for impeachable offenses, and that what keeps getting lost on the Trump side--his contempt for rule of law.
The scandal is not that people wanted, rightly, to impeach him for impeachable behavior, but that his party denied that accounting.
Yep, sure looks like they're only interested in making sure those who support Trump now don't later try to "get away" with claiming they never supported Trump.
Well, here is a statement by the Trump Accountability Project.
This looks to be something like what the Southern Poverty Law Center does, only on a smaller scale.
How is it different from lobbying against politicians or businesses which take pro-choice or strong gun control positions?
I still don't see how there is anything wrong with reminding Americans of the policies pro-Trump politicians voted for and implemented. If those policies and support for them is really ok, then how could there be a problem?
Trump Accountability Project (TAP) The Trump Accountability Project (TAP) is a resource on the Trump administration which catalogues the anti-LGBTQ statements and actions of President Donald Trump and those in his circle. The Trump Accountability Project also includes other harmful rhetoric, discriminatory actions, and exclusionary worldviews of the Trump administration. GLAAD publishes TAP to equip journalists, as well as LGBTQ people and allies, to hold the Trump administration accountable for their words and actions. Our individual TAP profiles also serve as a reminder that many in the administration have blatantly pledged to dismantle the legal protections that LGBTQ people, as well as other communities, have achieved over the past several years.
(11-10-2020, 01:12 AM)Dill Wrote: Well, here is a statement by the Trump Accountability Project.
This looks to be something like what the Southern Poverty Law Center does, only on a smaller scale.
How is it different from lobbying against politicians or businesses which take pro-choice or strong gun control positions?
I still don't see how there is anything wrong with reminding Americans of the policies pro-Trump politicians voted for and implemented. If those policies and support for them is really ok, then how could there be a problem?
Trump Accountability Project (TAP) The Trump Accountability Project (TAP) is a resource on the Trump administration which catalogues the anti-LGBTQ statements and actions of President Donald Trump and those in his circle. The Trump Accountability Project also includes other harmful rhetoric, discriminatory actions, and exclusionary worldviews of the Trump administration. GLAAD publishes TAP to equip journalists, as well as LGBTQ people and allies, to hold the Trump administration accountable for their words and actions. Our individual TAP profiles also serve as a reminder that many in the administration have blatantly pledged to dismantle the legal protections that LGBTQ people, as well as other communities, have achieved over the past several years.
An interesting, and unflattering, account of this from Politico, which is a left leaning site.
(11-09-2020, 12:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think here is where you go of the rails a bit. People don't support Trump because they're credulous. This comes off as incredibly condescending. They support him because they oppose what he opposes (in theory) and they both repudiate the worst excesses of the Democrats. Couple that with him having an odd sort of charisma (at least in 2016) and a desire to move outside the current system of power and you have a recipe for some rather staunch loyalty. Trump supporters aren't middle of the road types, they're going to find much of the Dem platform utterly unpalatable. If they see Trump as the best bulwark against that agenda they will stick with him. If he ceases to be that they will move on.
On this MB I have frequently contested monolithic constructions of Trump support. I don't think I am guilty of that here.
Some understood that a Trump win means lower taxes, and that trumped any ethical problem they might otherwise have with banning Muslims or calling Mexicans "rapists" or admiring and defending murderous dictators or obstructing justice or separating parents and children at the border to "send a message."
Trump got some 80% of the Evangelical vote--comprising millions who believe he was chosen by God to play a role in the Endtime. Their fabulously wealthy leaders may care about taxes, but many of the rank and file do not. Ending abortion was more important--and securing Israel. The norms of democracy are "man's law" not God's. God's purpose trumps man's, etc. Hindering Trump was hindering God's will--not a view which favored impeachment.
Trump also had the support of Alt-Righters, and of people who followed politics very little but who understood that their livelihoods depended upon coal or fracking and Trump was their best shot to keep that going. Among all of these groups were people who felt that white identity was under threat by immigration. Trump was certainly their "bulwark" against that.
Recognizing that people supported Trump for diverse reasons does not rule out, however, that his campaign and its media arm worked to create an alternative reality in which the Russia investigation and impeachment and pandemic were "hoaxes"--though they were not. An environment in which more reputable news sources and military, scientific and medical authorities were all suspect, while Trump-endorsed crackpots like Dr. Atlas or Rudy Giuliani were not.
I dispute any claim of symmetry between the MSM and the network of right wing media which includes Fox and Christian Broadcasting etc. as if "both sides" were somehow equally disinforming and constructing audiences open to manipulation.
The clash of alternative realities was abundantly clear in the final debate as Trump spewed baseless accusations that Biden had received "millions from Russia" and the like. All mystifying to "middle-of-the-road-types," but gospel truth those feasting on Hannity and Rush.
So of course Trump supporters oppose what Trump opposes--the "deep state" and Democratic "worst excesses" like "socialism" and "the Biden crime family." He is a "bulwark" against the fears that he and his right wing backers have worked decades to generate. And as Max Weber reminds us, "Charisma" is not IN politicians and prophets, but is projected onto them by followers. That's why his odious and vulgar behavior has no traction outside the right wing bubble, but produces adulation inside it.
Every single Trump supporter might not be credulous. But millions certainly were/are, and continue to be--played now by fears of new "Dem excesses," Trump endorsed rumors of myriad instances of voter fraud in swing states which criss-cross their blogs and Facebook and Twitter accounts faster than they can be refuted.
(11-10-2020, 02:04 AM)Dill Wrote: On this MB I have frequently contested monolithic constructions of Trump support. I don't think I am guilty of that here.
Some understood that a Trump win means lower taxes, and that trumped any ethical problem they might otherwise have with banning Muslims or calling Mexicans "rapists" or admiring and defending murderous dictators or obstructing justice or separating parents and children at the border to "send a message."
Trump got some 80% of the Evangelical vote--comprising millions who believe he was chosen by God to play a role in the Endtime. Their fabulously wealthy leaders may care about taxes, but many of the rank and file do not. Ending abortion was more important--and securing Israel. The norms of democracy are "man's law" not God's. God's purpose trumps man's, etc. Hindering Trump was hindering God's will--not a view which favored impeachment.
Trump also had the support of Alt-Righters, and of people who followed politics very little but who understood that their livelihoods depended upon coal or fracking and Trump was their best shot to keep that going. Among all of these groups were people who felt that white identity was under threat by immigration. Trump was certainly their "bulwark" against that.
Recognizing that people supported Trump for diverse reasons does not rule out, however, that his campaign and its media arm worked to create an alternative reality in which the Russia investigation and impeachment and pandemic were "hoaxes"--though they were not. An environment in which more reputable news sources and military, scientific and medical authorities were all suspect, while Trump-endorsed crackpots like Dr. Atlas or Rudy Giuliani were not.
I dispute any claim of symmetry between the MSM and the network of right wing media which includes Fox and Christian Broadcasting etc. as if "both sides" were somehow equally disinforming and constructing audiences open to manipulation.
The clash of alternative realities was abundantly clear in the final debate as Trump spewed baseless accusations that Biden had received "millions from Russia" and the like. All mystifying to "middle-of-the-road-types," but gospel truth those feasting on Hannity and Rush.
So of course Trump supporters oppose what Trump opposes--the "deep state" and Democratic "worst excesses" like "socialism" and "the Biden crime family." He is a "bulwark" against the fears that he and his right wing backers have worked decades to generate. And as Max Weber reminds us, "Charisma" is not IN politicians and prophets, but is projected onto them by followers. That's why his odious and vulgar behavior has no traction outside the right wing bubble, but produces adulation inside it.
Every single Trump supporter might not be credulous. But millions certainly were/are, and continue to be--played now by fears of new "Dem excesses," Trump endorsed rumors of myriad instances of voter fraud in swing states which criss-cross their blogs and Facebook and Twitter accounts faster than they can be refuted.
(11-10-2020, 02:04 AM)Dill Wrote: On this MB I have frequently contested monolithic constructions of Trump support. I don't think I am guilty of that here.
I'll certainly give you the benefit of the doubt.
Quote:Some understood that a Trump win means lower taxes, and that trumped any ethical problem they might otherwise have with banning Muslims or calling Mexicans "rapists" or admiring and defending murderous dictators or obstructing justice or separating parents and children at the border to "send a message."
You don't start off too strong here. Trump never banned Muslims (this is an obvious sore spot for you btw). Also, and this does not help your argument, you throw a lot at the wall here, perhaps hoping some of it will stick. You also assume these specific reasons resulted in people voting for Trump, which is not a fact in evidence, but apparently presented to bolster your position.
Quote:Trump got some 80% of the Evangelical vote--comprising millions who believe he was chosen by God to play a role in the Endtime.
This is an incredibly strong statement. Do you you have any proof of this? Given your dislike for absolute statements about muslims this statement about evangelicals comes off as strongly hypocritial.
Quote:Their fabulously wealthy leaders may care about taxes, but many of the rank and file do not. Ending abortion was more important--and securing Israel. The norms of democracy are "man's law" not God's. God's purpose trumps man's, etc. Hindering Trump was hindering God's will--not a view which favored impeachment.
Again, much of this argument strikes me as hyperbolic in the extreme, perhaps designed to shock the reader into acceptance. I'd very much like to see any solid evidence that backs it up.
Quote:Trump also had the support of Alt-Righters, and of people who followed politics very little but who understood that their livelihoods depended upon coal or fracking and Trump was their best shot to keep that going. Among all of these groups were people who felt that white identity was under threat by immigration. Trump was certainly their "bulwark" against that.
You once again combine multiple concerns under one umbrella, as if they were inseparable. This does not lend your argument any credibility, in fact it does the opposite.
Quote:Recognizing that people supported Trump for diverse reasons does not rule out, however, that his campaign and its media arm worked to create an alternative reality in which the Russia investigation and impeachment and pandemic were "hoaxes"--though they were not. An environment in which more reputable news sources and military, scientific and medical authorities were all suspect, while Trump-endorsed crackpots like Dr. Atlas or Rudy Giuliani were not.
Once again you present one side as indisputably correct and the other as the opposite. This position is the opposite of nuanced or well considered when considered as presented.
Quote:I dispute any claim of symmetry between the MSM and the network of right wing media which includes Fox and Christian Broadcasting etc. as if "both sides" were somehow equally disinforming and constructing audiences open to manipulation.
No one familiar with your posting history would be surprised by this. The problem is it presents nothing to convince other than your opinion.
Quote:The clash of alternative realities was abundantly clear in the final debate as Trump spewed baseless accusations that Biden had received "millions from Russia" and the like. All mystifying to "middle-of-the-road-types," but gospel truth those feasting on Hannity and Rush.
Ahh, this is an interesting statement, as it frames all who oppose Biden as wholesale believers in deep state conspiracies. This isn't as subtle as you think. nor is it as effective.
Quote:So of course Trump supporters oppose what Trump opposes--the "deep state" and Democratic "worst excesses" like "socialism" and "the Biden crime family." He is a "bulwark" against the fears that he and his right wing backers have worked decades to generate. And as Max Weber reminds us, "Charisma" is not IN politicians and prophets, but is projected onto them by followers. That's why his odious and vulgar behavior has no traction outside the right wing bubble, but produces adulation inside it.
Here is where you really veer off the highway of logical analysis and buy wholesale into partisan positions. If you're attempting to persuade the undecided with this post I'd have to guess you failed miserably. Labeling anyone who doesn't adhere to your positions as robotic simpletons is no way to win them over with your argument.
Quote:Every single Trump supporter might not be credulous. But millions certainly were/are, and continue to be--played now by fears of new "Dem excesses," Trump endorsed rumors of myriad instances of voter fraud in swing states which criss-cross their blogs and Facebook and Twitter accounts faster than they can be refuted.
Again, further proof, if any was needed (might be?). You see your ideological opponents as credulous simpletons, willing to believe anything if it fits into their preconceptions. You don't see your opponents as people of intelligence capable of nuanced thought or feeling. You, apparently, and forgive me if I am wrong, see them as ideological robots. For a man as aged and learned as yourself this position is surprisingly absolute and brooks no dissension, at least without extreme rebuke. I might postulate that your own position is as credulous as those you claim to abhor, but I don't like to traffic in such absolutes. I'll simply chalk it up to your dislike for Trump and hope for an improvement within the next few years.
For me, the most disturbing implication of that article was that people who sat around a table with Trump and decided to separate children from parents as a cruel means of dissuading other parents from seeking asylum in the US might have no trouble finding new jobs and invitations to dinners and parties.
In your view, are AOC's actions ethically analogous to Trump's Muslim ban or his efforts to increase hostility towards immigrants from Central America? I.e., are the similar in motivation and desired effect?
(11-10-2020, 02:29 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You don't start off too strong here. Trump never banned Muslims (this is an obvious sore spot for you btw). Also, and this does not help your argument, you throw a lot at the wall here, perhaps hoping some of it will stick. You also assume these specific reasons resulted in people voting for Trump, which is not a fact in evidence, but apparently presented to bolster your position.
This is an incredibly strong statement. Do you you have any proof of this? Given your dislike for absolute statements about muslims this statement about evangelicals comes off as strongly hypocritial.
Again, much of this argument strikes me as hyperbolic in the extreme, perhaps designed to shock the reader into acceptance. I'd very much like to see any solid evidence that backs it up.
You once again combine multiple concerns under one umbrella, as if they were inseparable. This does not lend your argument any credibility, in fact it does the opposite.
I am going to spread my response across two posts. The responses above are to my representation of Trump supporters as diverse. I had assumed these points were relatively uncontroversial--there are Trump supporters who like his tax relief, Evangelicals who see him as the Lord's instrument to reshape America, Alt Righters, people who live from coal and fracking. None of these groups is mutually exclusive, and I could have added a few more. But were all collected to make the point that people did not vote for Trump for one reason; they are not presented as "inseparable." (Another place I have noted the diversity of Trump's base, including the Evangelical component http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Does-Trump-inspire-hate-from-his-followers?pid=812742&highlight=evangelical#pid812742)
I am aware that Trump's Muslim ban was unsuccessful, but I mention here because it, like the wall, drew him immediate support. It is a "sore spot" for me because of its dehumanizing intent. Just as an attempt to "ban Jews" would be a sore point.
You have reacted most strongly to my characterization of Evangelical support. I don't know what you mean by calling it "absolutist" or how you can possibly discern something "hypocritical" here. It's not like I was calling for an Evangelical ban after criticizing Trump for a Muslim ban. My description is empirical, based on polls, like this Pew poll from July, which states that 82% of white evangelicals say they would vote for Trump if the election were "held today." That has been fairly steady for years. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/01/white-evangelical-approval-of-trump-slips-but-eight-in-ten-say-they-would-vote-for-him/
This Evangelical support has held fairly consistently over the last four years.
And and my description is based upon statements by Evangelicals about Trump, and the public discussion about his role as "chosen one."
Evangelical leaders like Lance Wallnau and Jonathan Cahn predicted Trump's divinely guided election in 2016, as did Trump's current White House spiritual adviser Paula White, who saw angels from Africa coming to save Trump. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WgM3N6FmuA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gueefpHqcNw.
White is the legendary Evangelist who guided Trump to Evangelical Christianity and organizes mass prayer for him
I have discussed the Evangelical stance towards Trump in man, and the clash between "man's law vs God's law" before here, in post #8.
(11-10-2020, 02:29 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Recognizing that people supported Trump for diverse reasons does not rule out, however, that his campaign and its media arm worked to create an alternative reality in which the Russia investigation and impeachment and pandemic were "hoaxes"--though they were not. An environment in which more reputable news sources and military, scientific and medical authorities were all suspect, while Trump-endorsed crackpots like Dr. Atlas or Rudy Giuliani were not.
Once again you present one side as indisputably correct and the other as the opposite. This position is the opposite of nuanced or well considered when considered as presented.
No one familiar with your posting history would be surprised by this. The problem is it presents nothing to convince other than your opinion.
Quote:The clash of alternative realities was abundantly clear in the final debate as Trump spewed baseless accusations that Biden had received "millions from Russia" and the like. All mystifying to "middle-of-the-road-types," but gospel truth those feasting on Hannity and Rush.
Ahh, this is an interesting statement, as it frames all who oppose Biden as wholesale believers in deep state conspiracies. This isn't as subtle as you think. nor is it as effective.
Again, I find your response baffling. Are you disputing that the Trump Campaign and supporters at Fox characterized the Russia investigation, the impeachment, and the Pandemic as a "hoax"? Are you claiming the "hoaxes" really were just hoaxes? Where is the "nuance" between advancing Atlas over Fauci as the nation's Pandemic guide?
I see no premises refuted here, just impressions--my factual premises are "interesting" or not "convincing" or not "subtle." But they are simply left intact as factual claims. Dispute and refute if you think them wrong.
My "interesting statement" frames the president of the U.S. spewing baseless accusations. Did he do that or did he not?
Stating what Trump ACTUALLY SAID during the debate does not automatically "frame all who opposed Biden as wholesale believers in deep state conspiracies." Though it does support my claim about the right wing media production of alternative reality. Or are you arguing that Trump's is not the alternative reality? And I am not "effective" in arguing that a national leader who is unable or unwilling to distinguish between truth and rumor or not is a national problem? You remain unconvinced?
Are disputing that large numbers of the PRESIDENT OF THE US's followers believe the conspiracies he touts?
Are you disputing my claim that his conspiracy theories are false?
(11-10-2020, 02:29 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:So of course Trump supporters oppose what Trump opposes--the "deep state" and Democratic "worst excesses" like "socialism" and "the Biden crime family." He is a "bulwark" against the fears that he and his right wing backers have worked decades to generate. And as Max Weber reminds us, "Charisma" is not IN politicians and prophets, but is projected onto them by followers. That's why his odious and vulgar behavior has no traction outside the right wing bubble, but produces adulation inside it.
Here is where you really veer off the highway of logical analysis and buy wholesale into partisan positions. If you're attempting to persuade the undecided with this post I'd have to guess you failed miserably. Labeling anyone who doesn't adhere to your positions as robotic simpletons is no way to win them over with your argument.
Quote:Every single Trump supporter might not be credulous. But millions certainly were/are, and continue to be--played now by fears of new "Dem excesses," Trump endorsed rumors of myriad instances of voter fraud in swing states which criss-cross their blogs and Facebook and Twitter accounts faster than they can be refuted.
Again, further proof, if any was needed (might be?). You see your ideological opponents as credulous simpletons, willing to believe anything if it fits into their preconceptions. You don't see your opponents as people of intelligence capable of nuanced thought or feeling. You, apparently, and forgive me if I am wrong, see them as ideological robots. For a man as aged and learned as yourself this position is surprisingly absolute and brooks no dissension, at least without extreme rebuke. I might postulate that your own position is as credulous as those you claim to abhor, but I don't like to traffic in such absolutes. I'll simply chalk it up to your dislike for Trump and hope for an improvement within the next few years.
Three quick points here.
1. You do not refute my arguments here at all. you offer impressions and (quite judgemental) advice and generally talk around and about them.
2. Of course I "brook dissension." But to be effective, to meet argument as argument, that dissension should take the form of factual refutation of observations and measures offered.
3. The first question here is whether actually, factually, and determinably there are millions of Trump voters who believe in conspiracy theories, spread in part by the president himself. If observation establishes that there are such, then that fact can't be disestablished or refuted because it would make those voters "credulous simpletons" or "ideological robots."
And if it can be established, that hardly makes me "credulous" or "surprisingly absolutist."
I'm honestly trying with you, but if you expect me to respond to that absolute mess of posts you're going to be disappointed. No, it has nothing to do with being incapable and everything to do with them being an overly long, disjointed mess. Although I doubt you'll take me at my word in this regard.
![[Image: Jennifer-Rubin.jpg?resize=696%2C810&ssl=1]](https://i0.wp.com/www.opindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Jennifer-Rubin.jpg?resize=696%2C810&ssl=1)
![[Image: Trump-supporter-tap.jpg?resize=696%2C859&ssl=1]](https://i0.wp.com/www.opindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Trump-supporter-tap.jpg?resize=696%2C859&ssl=1)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](http://media1.giphy.com/media/9EmYYw6o9cmsM/giphy.gif)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
