Drumpfucks - Yep, They're Crazy

[Minimalist]

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/08/a-psycho...bout-them/

A psychological analysis of Trump supporters has uncovered 5 key traits about them

Add them all up and we have a sizeable chuck of the country that is stone-cold, fuck, nuts.

[vorlon13]

. . . not sure I'd be doing a promo tour on that . . .

[Gearbreak]

Or you know we're mostly normal everyday Americans who differ on policy. I never like to fall into the trap of thinking my political opposites are crazy or stupid. I just think they're wrong.

[Minimalist]

Bullshit.

[Crossless2.0]

Or you know we're mostly normal everyday Americans who differ on policy. I never like to fall into the trap of thinking my political opposites are crazy or stupid. I just think they're wrong.

As a rule, I agree: it's usually not useful to think of one's opponents in those terms, if only for pragmatic tactical reasons. But I'm not quite willing to extend the laurel wreath of "reason" to either my opponents or my allies. Or me, for that matter. The older I get, the more distrustful I become regarding claims of reason -- especially when emotions like fear, resentment, greed, and tribal identity are so often obviously at the bottom of many disputes.

If the differences are really about policy and means-and-ends, then they fall within the realm of the rational and political (in an Aristotelian sense). But it's my experience that in many, many cases it's not really about differences of policy so much as it is about different sorts of non-rational inclinations that, taken as a whole, amount to antithetical worldviews. In reality, "differences on policy" is usually just post-hoc, rationalized window dressing for these inclinations. I doubt many people ever argued themselves into being conservative, liberal, or otherwise. To the extent that people switch political teams, it's usually only after they've somehow squared their emerging political identity with "the way things are" -- i.e, the way they feel them to be.

Case in point: think of that generation of American and other Western intellectuals who were staunch Communists and even Stalinists during the '30s and '40s before the weight of Soviet crimes became too much for many of them to ignore or explain away. Several of that group went on to become outright reactionaries while others (Irving Kristol comes to mind) became the vanguard of the neo-conservative movement -- all without settling along the way on anything resembling a moderate position. They simply swapped extreme ideologies because -- I suspect -- there is something in the way they viewed the world that predisposed them to the sorts of sweeping explanations of human affairs that leftist and rightwing political stances satisfy on a purely emotional level.

[Brian37]

Or you know we're mostly normal everyday Americans who differ on policy. I never like to fall into the trap of thinking my political opposites are crazy or stupid. I just think they're wrong.

I wouldn't say everyone no, but there still is a reason Trump won and he had enough on the far right that pushed him to the win, and the GOP did little to nothing as a party to stop his vile demagoguery. 

You can argue policy  all you want, but his voters did support a vile person. Arguing policy does not make Trump a nice guy or much less good for America. Even after taking the oath he cant stop scapegoating and insulting everyone. Even if I agreed with GOP economics, which I do not, how you can still think he can be an effective leader after everything he has said and done is a bit miffing. 

Because of all his vile bullshit, you are now stuck with a mere crybaby who is being baby sat.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Or you know we're mostly normal everyday Americans who differ on policy. I never like to fall into the trap of thinking my political opposites are crazy or stupid. I just think they're wrong.

Mostly, I agree. But there's a subtle bigoted undercurrent to much of Trump's support. I'm not say all or even most of his supporters are racist, but as the article highlighted, he used dog-whistles very well ... and enough dogs came a-runnin'.

Me, I regard bigotry as stupidity.

[Minimalist]

If you think back, the WLB had no policy.  All he ever said was that he was the smartest guy ever and he had a plan for Afghanistan, for immigration, for getting Mexico to pay for the stupid, fucking, wall, for great healthcare that covered everything and cost less, and so on.  "I'm the only one who can fix it" was one of his slogans and the lunatic racist fringe bought it hook, line and sinker.

Now the useless shit finds himself in real school and he doesn't have the attention span to learn.

[Brian37]

Or you know we're mostly normal everyday Americans who differ on policy. I never like to fall into the trap of thinking my political opposites are crazy or stupid. I just think they're wrong.

Mostly, I agree. But there's a subtle bigoted undercurrent to much of Trump's support. I'm not say all or even most of his supporters are racist, but as the article highlighted, he used dog-whistles very well ... and enough dogs came a-runnin'.

Me, I regard bigotry as stupidity.

 
Yea but 45 simply improved on the dog whistle tactic the GOP had been using for decades. Fox was using that dog whistle crap long before 45 considered running. But the GOP really shit their pants when the black guy won.

[Minimalist]

True, that shit started with Nixon's "southern strategy."