Are Republicans More Often Sheeple Compared to Democrats?

[Augustus]

Do mere figures need to "explain a general truth"?

The figures Mellman cited certainly seem to lead to the conclusion that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to change their views and values in order to "follow the leader" this election.

Your thread title and OP seem to suggest you are making a pejorative generalisation, rather than a narrow observation about this specific election.

If indeed "Republicans are more likely than Democrats to change their views and values in order to "follow the leader" this election." this still doesn't even go close to proving Republicans are more likely to be "sheeple" even in this election.

Plenty of Dems seem to be willing to look the other way when faced with Hillary's Hawkish neocon FP, dissapearing BlackBerries, and her receiving large quantities of money from people who would benefit greatly from having the ear of of powerful politician.

I'm pretty confident that they would find great flaws in any Republican candidate with the same history.

What would be some good evidence that we can point to showing that Trump supporters are "smarter/more ethical/more honest"? Obviously not their educational achievements.

It's not about evidence, as it is about what they would say themselves.

My point was that many on BOTH sides see themselves as being superior due to both sides being comprised of human beings and all human beings being born with inbuilt cognitive biases that make such behaviour par for the course.

We are intrinsically self-aggrandising hypocrites far better suited to seeing the flaws in others rather than ourselves and excellent at constructing narratives that support our group's superiority and minimise its flaws when compared to the 'other'.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

A warning to the GOP?
http://www.xkcd.com/1013/

 

[Nous]

You are kidding right?

I would love to see the reaction if a report was published that was titled' "Democrats, no where near as tough as Republicans" by Newt Gingrich

The figures Mellman cited are not just stuff he fabricated. Obviously you haven't articulated any reason to doubt their veracity.

 

[Nous]

I remember being struck by how the protests against the wars completely
evaporated overnite when Obama was elected.

If you have any evidence by which to conclude that Democrats changed their views and values, why not present it?

He kept Bush's policies,
eg, support for the wars, keeping Gitmo open

Obviously you need to review the facts.

 

[Nous]

If indeed "Republicans are more likely than Democrats to change their views and values in order to "follow the leader" this election." this still doesn't even go close to proving Republicans are more likely to be "sheeple" even in this election.

Perhaps you have your own idiosyncratic definition of "sheeple". By that term, I only meant what the facts noted by Mellman reflect.

It's not about evidence, as it is about what they would say themselves.

I'm only interested in evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you have any evidence by which to conclude that Democrats changed their views and values, why not present it?
Obviously you need to review the facts.

The evidence was the complete disappearance of war protests.
Some Democrats still opposed the wars. But then we all know
that there's still diversity of thought in the parties.
Evidence to dispute the facts I presented?

 

[Nous]

We've had these conversations, I'm pretty sure you don't know what the term evidence means.

By "evidence," I mean this:

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief;proof.

2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.​

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence?s=t

Most of my "opinion" actually comes from data I possess, but it's mine, personal, and I'm not sharing.

It seems you live in the same private universe as Trump does. Don't let him grope you.

 

[Nous]

The evidence was the complete disappearance of war protests.

Cite it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Cite it.

Search your own memory for news in 2009?
See! No more anti-war protests.

 

[Augustus]

Perhaps you have your own idiosyncratic definition of "sheeple"

It is a touch more idiosyncratic than: Sheeple (n): People who are more likely to 'follow the leader' in the 2016 US presidential election based on a narrow range of issues cherry picked by a political operative.

I'm only interested in evidence.

Then you'll know that what I said about our cognitive defects is perfectly true and won't pretend that political affiliation overrides our basic neurological programming

 

[Nous]

Search your own memory for news in 2009?
See! No more anti-war protests.

So you can't substantiate your claim that "X" didn't happened.

Obviously one cannot deduce any affirmative proposition from your absence of evidence.

 

[Nous]

It is a touch more idiosyncratic than: Sheeple (n): People who are more likely to 'follow the leader' in the 2016 US presidential election based on a narrow range of issues cherry picked by a political operative.



Then you'll know that what I said about our cognitive defects is perfectly true and won't pretend that political affiliation overrides our basic neurological programming

Vacuous.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you can't substantiate your claim that "X" didn't happened.
Obviously one cannot deduce any affirmative proposition from your absence of evidence.

I just wonder why you reject what everyone saw without presenting some
sure to be dismissed evidence? And yet you produce none of your own.

 

[Nous]

I just wonder why you reject what everyone saw

What a lunatic thing to say. What did everyone see? Show it.

Have you understood that one cannot deduce a positive proposition from your absence of evidence?

 

[Revoltingest]

What a lunatic thing to say. What did everyone see? Show it.
You ask for evidence with a tone of dispute.
Do you dispute it?
Do you remember differently?

 

[Nous]

You ask for evidence

And you haven't cited any yet.

 

[Revoltingest]

And you haven't cited any yet.

You haven't answered any questions.
Or presented any evidence of your own.

 

[Nous]

Or presented any evidence of your own.

Here is the evidence I cited:

In a brief but interesting article for The Hill, Mark Mellman cites a few figures that show Republicans tend to change their views and values in order to “follow the leader” during this election season. For instance, two polls show that 83-84% of Republicans now give their support to Trump, whereas last year a third of Republicans said they wouldn't support Trump if he were the nominee.

Another highly informative example:

In 2011, just 36 percent of Republicans believed someone “who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically ... in their public office,” according to a PRRI Brookings poll. By October of this year, with Trump’s immorality being trumpeted everywhere, 70 percent of Republicans were distinguishing between politicians’ private and public lives — double the number five years ago.

Here Democrats’ views also evolved, but their level of agreement with this notion rose by a far lesser 12 points.​

https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/opinion/mark-mellman/302771-mellman-follow-the-leader

So perhaps there is difference between Democrats and Republicans in their partisan allegiance?

You haven't answered any questions.

Quote the questions I didn't answer here. (The problem might be that some questions are too incoherent to answer.)

 

[Mindmaster]

I just wonder why you reject what everyone saw without presenting some
sure to be dismissed evidence? And yet you produce none of your own.

Rejecting evidence based on the fact that it doesn't conform to the expected norms via their Stockholm Syndrome, thus you and I are wrong and no evidence is needed. The first sign of being a sheep is ratting out the other "sheep" when they don't "keep their head down" far enough to be acceptable.

The Gestapo paid well for citizen informants to propagandize and rat on their neighbors... But, they were still evil. These dopes do it for free.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here is the evidence I cited:


Quote the questions I didn't answer here. (The problem might be that some questions are too incoherent to answer.)

Your 'evidence' isn't even related to my claim that anti-war protests evaporated upon the wars becoming Obama's.