Let us grant that the deliberate perpetuation of the falsehood was Trump's; still the belief of others cannot be based simply on that. The interesting question is as to why they take Trump at his word? What motivates their taking Trump at his word? — Janus

They wanted a violent overthrow of the government.

So, Trump supporters' belief that the election was stolen is not based upon evidence. What grounds their belief? What is such belief based upon? — creativesoul

It's not clear it's a belief. It could also be simply strategy, a claim they repeatedly make (even though they know it isn't true) because it serves their purpose to do so (to obtain high positions of power).

Which also explains why they seem immune to facts. They know the facts, they just have different plans.

The interesting question is as to why they take Trump at his word? What motivates their taking Trump at his word? — Janus

Why are right-wingers right-wingers?

It's not clear it's a belief. It could also be simply strategy, a claim they repeatedly make (even though they know it isn't true) because it serves their purpose to do so (to obtain high positions of power).

Which also explains why they seem immune to facts. They know the facts, they just have different plans. — baker

Yes, I think this may explain a lot of it.

The interesting question is as to why they take Trump at his word? What motivates their taking Trump at his word? — Janus

It's a culture war and tribalism like this is about attack and maintaining the rage. Trumps biggest attraction is that he seems to have the right enemies - his content is useful primarily as a battle cry.

I agree with both your answers, but the question seeks a deeper answer; why do they want to overthrow the Government, what motivates their participation in a "culture war". Baker's question seems inapt because this is not typical right-winger behavior. Typically they are conservative and want to maintain the status quo; this taste for revolution is coming, it seems, from the disaffected working class; those who you would expect to be more aligned with the left. So, Trump seems to have played on this disaffection and duped people into thinking he is all for the worker, the 'every woman and man'.

So, it seems to me the answer lies in the growing perception that the left have sold out to corporate and plutocratic interests.This perception is also there in Australian politics, but the intensity is dialed down somewhat.

So, it seems to me the answer lies in the growing perception that the left have sold out to corporate and plutocratic interests. — Janus

Hitler's National Socialism, fascism, was popular in the lower middle class. Because they tend to be less educated and without skills for good jobs. Basically, about resentment.

Yes, I agree that it's a lot to do with resentment, even desperation. When people are desperate, they are easier to dupe

Typically they are conservative and want to maintain the status quo; this taste for revolution is coming, — Janus

You raise good questions and I don't have certainty on this, just some ideas. I think conservatism has been coopeted by a more radical right that has little interest in social institutions or tradition, other than what can be used for propaganda and to ignite hatreds. This seems to be the case in most English speaking countries. Even the idea of a 'right wing' is an inadequate and perhaps outdated term.

So, it seems to me the answer lies in the growing perception that the left have sold out to corporate and plutocratic interests. This perception is also there in Australian politics, but the intensity is dialed down somewhat. — Janus

Certainly. There are a range of reasons for Trump and the culture wars. Or Howard and the culture wars - or Abbott and Morrison and the culture wars. We live in a new era of super charged tribalism that can readily be organized and inflamed by social media and Murdoch. I think this intensifies bigotries and rewards dualistic thinking.

I agree with you about disaffected working folk - there should be a way to reactivate a Reformist Left (as opposed to a Cultural Left, which may be seen more as a product of elites and latte sipping hypocrites).

When I speak with working people I often hear that for them much of what passes for the Left hates and mocks them because the left is about elitism (education) and cultural issues they don't relate to and is palpably snooty about working people and the suburban life. I can see why they say that. 'The Right' has an opportunity to say - hey, we're not elitists, we don't dig modern culture much either, we just want all people to live the dream and make money for their family and be left alone by academic wankers and interfering governments. This can be seductive.

:up: What you say makes sense to me.

We live in a new era of super charged tribalism that can readily be organized and inflamed by social media and Murdoch. — Tom Storm

One small win for the Justice system against Murdoch's institutionalised mendacity:

Fox News’s parent company can be sued by a voting-machine maker because Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch may have acted with “actual malice” in directing the network to broadcast conspiracy theories alleging the 2020 presidential election was rigged against Donald Trump.

Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis on Tuesday denied Fox Corp.’s motion to dismiss the suit, saying Dominion Voting Systems had shown that the Murdochs may have been on notice that the conspiracy theory that rigged voting machines tilted the vote was false but let Fox News broadcast it anyway. — Bloomberg

Maybe part of Trump's appeal is that he exemplifies 'you can create your own reality, never mind facts'. He plainly lives in a kind of fantasy world, in his own mind he was the greatest of all presidents and is wrongfully maligned and scorned by an ignorant world. His followers buy into that fantasy. Behind its malignant scowl, it's magical thinking. That's what makes it so dangerous - complete disregard for fact.

(I sometimes wondered, and it was commented, that the global financial crisis was created in part by the Bill Clinton's belief that everyone was entitled to own a home. Magical thinking, again.)

Religions don't have a monopoly on belief.

If anyone is entitled to own a home then why not everyone? It has been the property developers and investors who have made owning a home unaffordable for many. This is part of the financialization of the economy which has greatly increased the wealth gap which has been so detrimental to human life in so many ways.

The merits or otherwise of home ownership is a question of political economics. The point I was making was more about the influence of wishful or magical thinking on a large scale and how this can resemble religious belief, even if the object is not at all associated with religion.

As I see it the GFC was caused, in great part, by corporate greed; setting up loans for people who could not afford them and probably didn't understand the fact that they couldn't afford them, and then manufacturing credit default swaps so they could profit from the inevitable masses of defaults caused by the banks' imposing margin calls when property prices declined and interest rates rose. Nothing much to do with "magical thinking", as far as I can see,

setting up loans for people who could not afford them — Janus

Indeed, but that article I linked to says a major factor was Bill Clinton's aspiration to provide home ownership to larger numbers of people. Or that was one of the factors - it also notes there was 'plenty of blame to go around'.

Right, I think that is a decent aspiration, though, at least in principle. Whether it ever could be achievable is another question. I think it would be great if governments did everything they could to enable as many people as possible to own their homes. This could include government funded cheap housing schemes, financial penalties, taxes and/or prohibitions, on property speculation such as to make it way less attractive or even non-viable, and so on. But maybe I would be indulging in magical thinking if I were to believe that governments would ever stand up to the plutocracy. "Money doesn't just talk, it swears".

Religions don't have a monopoly on belief. — Wayfarer

Agree although I would say that neo-liberalism is a religion...:wink:

Maybe part of Trump's appeal is that he exemplifies 'you can create your own reality, never mind facts' — Wayfarer

Indeed. Which is another imagined appeal of being filthy rich.

I suspect that facts are not the primarily the issue in this matter. It's all about feeling, one liners and channeling resentment. Discourse seems to have become a weaponized form of stand up comedy.

Lachlan Murdoch may have acted with “actual malice” in directing the network — Bloomberg

Lots of people are waiting for Rupert to die. Problem is Lachlan may well make Rupert look like the compassionate one.

Let us grant that the deliberate perpetuation of the falsehood was Trump's; still the belief of others cannot be based simply on that. The interesting question is as to why they take Trump at his word? What motivates their taking Trump at his word? — Janus

Trump was outspoken about these things long before the election. He put that idea into the public sphere when doing so. He openly claimed that the only way he would lose the 2020 election would be if it was "rigged". Everyone knowing about the DNC's simultaneous abject failure to provide the people with a free and fair election reminded everyone of the possibility. The Assange leak was shocking in that what everyone already suspected became undeniable.

He fostered, fomented, and perpetuated the very idea successfully partly as a result of recent history.

It's not clear it's a belief. It could also be simply strategy, a claim they repeatedly make (even though they know it isn't true) because it serves their purpose to do so (to obtain high positions of power).

Which also explains why they seem immune to facts. They know the facts, they just have different plans. — baker

Could explain the behavior. NOTHING excuses the inaction!!!

Could explain the behavior. NOTHING excuses the inaction!!! — creativesoul

Are you God?
Else, on what grounds can you fret about what they do or don't do?

I agree with you about disaffected working folk - there should be a way to reactivate a Reformist Left (as opposed to a Cultural Left, which may be seen more as a product of elites and latte sipping hypocrites).

When I speak with working people I often hear that for them much of what passes for the Left hates and mocks them because the left is about elitism (education) and cultural issues they don't relate to and is palpably snooty about working people and the suburban life. I can see why they say that. 'The Right' has an opportunity to say - hey, we're not elitists, we don't dig modern culture much either, we just want all people to live the dream and make money for their family and be left alone by academic wankers and interfering governments. This can be seductive. — Tom Storm

The right-wingers have a plebeian mentality, regardless of their education status and wealth.

I agree with both your answers, but the question seeks a deeper answer; why do they want to overthrow the Government, what motivates their participation in a "culture war". — Janus

They probably don't see it that way, but more in terms "so that the truth may prevail".

this taste for revolution is coming, it seems, from the disaffected working class; those who you would expect to be more aligned with the left.

No, I think the disaffected working class align themselves with right-wingers, because their focus is on material wealth, it's that plebeian mentality.

So, Trump seems to have played on this disaffection and duped people into thinking he is all for the worker, the 'every woman and man'.

I don't see it that way. People are eager for wealth, so they look up to the wealthy; but only to those wealthy they can already relate to, ie. those with a plebeian mentality, ie. the right-wingers.

The interesting question is as to why they take Trump at his word? What motivates their taking Trump at his word? — Janus

They rally around him like their religious leader. "Thou shalt not analyze my words against common sense!"

Could explain the behavior. NOTHING excuses the inaction!!!
— creativesoul

Are you God?
Else, on what grounds can you fret about what they do or don't do? — baker

Seditious conspiracy. Conspiracy to commit fraud against the United States of America. It's illegal to know about a planned attempt at sedition and not notify the proper authorites. It's illegal to help another implement either of the two clearly defined illegal behaviours above.

On the ground that I am an American citizen, and as such I expect all elected officials to do what's in the best interest of the country.. Seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to defraud the United States of America is never in the best interest of the country. Nothing excuses the inaction of those who knew what was happening and did nothing to prevent it. In times of strife, character is not built. Rather, it is shown.

Each and every individual who knew about and failed to report, and/or actively participated in either has committed a crime worthy of the most severe punishment, including removal from public office and being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law(according to the crime).

On what ground can you justify arguing otherwise?

:brow:

"Are you God?"

Pffft. Fucking morons around here.

On what ground can you justify arguing otherwise? — creativesoul

The Theory of Evolution, survival of the fittest. It's all the rage, we're all supposed to believe it, yet somehow, be very selective about thinking it through to its logical conclusions.

You didn't explicitly answer my question.

"Are you God?"

Pffft. Fucking morons around here.

Oh, the love is just oozing.