Now it’s “Trump has never been convicted of insurrection!” As if that would matter to cultists.

Trump is convicted. The predictable response: “The judge was corrupt— or the jury was stacked against him,” etc. It doesn’t end.

There reaches a point where a person is no longer amenable to reason or evidence. Look no further than election denial, climate denial, 2nd amendment enthusiasts, flat earthers, etc. Doesn’t matter — there will always be some excuse to go on believing what you wanted to believe in the first place.

That's right, Mikie. Many Trump supporters said they would still vote for him if he is a convicted felon. In the August debate, six of the eight Republican candidates indicated they would support Donald Trump for president even if he were found guilty of at least one felony. So much for the party of law and order.

What worries me more are those who believe it doesn't matter who wins, because both candidates are flawed. They may sit out, vote for a 3rd option, or vote to kick out the incumbent.

I'm just patiently waiting for the US to implode due to its corrupt and vacuous politics.

There reaches a point where a person is no longer amenable to reason or evidence. Look no further than election denial, climate denial, 2nd amendment enthusiasts, flat earthers, etc. Doesn’t matter — there will always be some excuse to go on believing what you wanted to believe in the first place. — Mikie

The following excerpt from a Robert Cialdini book seems relevant, both to your observation and to various threads going on about morality, and discussion of promises.

https://medium.com/@charlesleon/consistency-and-commitment-9f2f9d38e188

There is a reason the news, the politicians, the lawyers, the state, the experts, and the whole authoritarian gang are regarded as little more than something we wipe off our shoes. It’s because you’ve gotten everything wrong about every issue. Your reason is shit and we’re living in the results of it. That’s right; convicted felons are better than you.

What worries me more are those who believe it doesn't matter who wins, because both candidates are flawed. — Relativist

That’s a tough one. So many intelligent people make this argument— some good friends of mine (in “real life”) — that I’m trying to be more sympathetic towards it while also holding the feeling that I’m being asked to deny reality, which is frustrating. I’ve probed pretty hard and still haven’t been given convincing answers— but I’m definitely open to them.

If I thought that voting third party (I really like Cornel West, for example) would make a big difference, even in the long run, I’d do so and encourage others as well.

Both parties are indeed beholden to special interests, mostly corporate — Wall Street, big oil, Pharma, insurance, etc — but there are still ideological and policy differences, which are becoming more and more vast. Go down the line and it’s obvious. Climate change. Guns. Abortion. Voting rights.

I think the mistake is overthinking elections. It’s buying into the idea that this is our main power, and so we have to endlessly debate how to leverage it. But when you look at local politics, where practical things get done (zoning boards, school boards, budget committees), it’s more about which administration will hinder your goals.

If the choice is Trump or Biden, which it will be, it’s obvious to me who’s worse— and it does no good pretending that a vote for anyone else is much more than giving the worst candidate more of a chance, which is counterproductive to say the least. Unless you’re in a safe state, it’s just kind of silly to vote third party or not vote at all. What you’re doing is acting against your professed interests.

But I digress.

It’s because you’ve gotten everything wrong about every issue. — NOS4A2

Lol. According to the NY Post. Thank god they get things right.

Your lot censored the NY post in the lead up to an election because they were so scared of the truth. Good look.

I think the mistake is overthinking elections. — Mikie

My view is the exact opposite. Too many people underthink the consequences of their vote and who is elected.

But I agree with most of what you wrote.

Your lot censored the NY post in the lead up to an election because they were so scared of the truth. — NOS4A2

What "truth" was there to be afraid of? The NY Post article was available, and I read it at the time. It made Hunter look terrible, but he wasn't running.

What "truth" was there to be afraid of? The NY Post article was available, and I read it at the time. It made Hunter look terrible, but he wasn't running.

Exactly. There was no point in censoring it. But besides the crack smoking and hookers, his laptop showed that from 2013 through 2018 Hunter Biden brought in about $11 million via his roles as an attorney and a board member with a Ukrainian firm accused of bribery and his work with a Chinese businessman now accused of fraud.

Thanks for proving my point. Your assessment of “truth” is worthless, as you prove with each passing day.

My view is the exact opposite. Too many people underthink the consequences of their vote and who is elected. — Relativist

That’s also true. But I had a specific group in mind— the kind that thinks a lot about this stuff, but to a fault.

his laptop showed that from 2013 through 2018 Hunter Biden brought in about $11 million via his roles as an attorney and a board member with a Ukrainian firm accused of bribery and his work with a Chinese businessman now accused of fraud. — NOS4A2

That’s right— Hunter Biden is better than you. Your analysis is something we wipe off our shoes.

In unrelated news, please rant more about how the election was stolen…

Exactly. There was no point in censoring it. — NOS4A2

It would be interesting to discuss what was actually done, why it was done, and what mistakes (if any) were made. However, it contained no information relevant to the election - so the complaint seems vacuous.

It is relevant because Joe Biden knew about it all and lied to everyone that he did. He lied about it in the debates. Had that info not been censored, and had we not been kept in the dark about Biden's involvement, we might have made a more informed choice.

What "involvement" are you referring to? What information relevant to the election was the public unaware of? The laptop was dirt.

Him dining with Burisma executives, for example, and this while he was heading U.S. anti-corruption initiatives in Ukraine. Hunter was jet-setting around the world on Air Force 2 while the deals were going on. Devon Archer testified that Biden was on at least 20 speaker phone calls with Hunter and his foreign associates. Biden's assertions that he never discussed Hunter's business dealings, or that they never profited off the Biden name, all turned out to be false.

The laptop contained one email that indicated Biden had met one Burisma executive. That's all it said, and there's been no evidence since then of it being anything more. There was, and is, no evidence of Joe taking any actions favorable to Burisma, before or after. It was well established that Hunter had been capitalizing on his name. The laptop was used as dirt, pure and simple.

No no — it benefits our team, therefore it’s important and suddenly we care about lying and “immoral” behavior (hookers bad; porn stars, fine). Etc

Testimony has also confirmed, as have multiple news outlets and forensic analysis, that the laptop was legit, contradicting what has been said by so-called intelligence experts, the whitehouse, and Biden himself. That’s some dirty dirt.

They are not simply biased tribalists either, as is evidenced by how they cut ties with or get rid of those who no longer serve their cause.
— baker

It's because they're Trump loyalists who will buy into whatever argument Trump advances regardless of the evidence supporting it or the logical consistency of it.

His supporters bought into and still buy into the argument there was a nationwide conspiracy to rig the election in every contested district across the country. Despite no evidence, he continued to try to obstruct the result, all the way down to convincing his followers to physically standing in the way of it. — Hanover

Are you saying this because you actually believe this, or are you saying it merely for rhetorical purposes?

Testimony has also confirmed, as have multiple news outlets and forensic analysis, that the laptop was legit, contradicting what has been said by so-called intelligence experts, the whitehouse, and Biden himself. That’s some dirty dirt. — NOS4A2

The laptop was dirt on Hunter, and contained nothing that impugned Joe's integrity. That his campaign would seek to minimize the relevance of that dirt during the campaign should be expected. Similarly, one would expect the Trump campaign to do as much with this dirt as they could - and they did. Does greater access to dirt really lead to more informed voting, as you suggested?

Nothing the former intelligence officers said was false. They merely expressed a judgement, and acknowledged that they didn't know if it was legit or not.

Biden denied involvement with Hunter's business. You may choose to consider a dinner appearance as business involvement, and label this a lie, but it's a pretty innocuous involvement. Why should this affect anyone's vote? It seems disingenous for you to suggest it relevant, since you excuse thousands of falsehoods that have streamed from Trump - many of which are pertinent to his qualifications to be President.

as have multiple news outlets and forensic analysis — NOS4A2

Oh don’t you mean

the news […] the experts [that have] gotten everything wrong about every issue. — NOS4A2

Funny how it’s okay to trust them…sometimes. If they’re part of our team, or helping our team in some fashion, this is the criterion for truth. It’s how we know it’s legit. That news, and those experts, are fine.

At least within the cult.

I’m not sure why you’d defend misinformation and censorship of that sort unless it’s because you want to dismiss and minimize the information therein. Is there some other reason I’m unaware of?

Orbán has Trump's back.

'Evil is eating away at Western democracies,' says Hungarian PM Orban — jorndoe

What many people don't seem to realize is that this, too, is democracy. The problem isn't Trump, isn't Orban, it's the very phenomenon of democracy itself. In a democracy, people defend their own interests. And this inevitably leads to tensions. A common way of coping with those tensions is to try to discredit the others.

I'm just patiently waiting for the US to implode due to its corrupt and vacuous politics. — Benkei

Let's just hope it doesn't take (much of) the rest of the world with it.

Since Trump was elected Plato's warning about how democracies degenerate into tyrannies through demagogues has frequently pointed to. The demagogue poses as a champion of the people. Because they feel powerless and unable to make things better for themselves they turn to someone who promises to do it for them. They are willing to cede power in order to get the results they hope for, but rather than seeing this as ceding power they believe they are gaining power. — Fooloso4

Things like this are often said, but I need something more to become convinced of this. From what I've seen of Trumpistas and the like, they aren't "buying into" what "their leader" says. They haven't been "deceived" by a "demagogue". It's simply how they are already.

Saying that they're "buying into" what "their leader" says etc. seems to be primarily a rhetorical move by their critics. But if it's more than just a rhetorical move, if the critics actually believe that, then it seems it's because the alternative (and what it implies about human nature) is too scary. It seems to be easier to propose that people are basically good, but weak; than to consider the possibility that people are basically evil and strong.

Observation: maybe if there were ONE intelligent, reasonable Trump supporter anyone on the forum, there could be a chance for some consensus.

I suppose it’s a good thing though, in case anyone “on the fence” looks on. But isn’t it strange?