Are Republicans More Often Sheeple Compared to Democrats?

[Revoltingest]

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.

At times, it seems I could claim we beat the Nazis in WW2,
& someone would demand evidence.

 

[idav]

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

That for sure, I'd be hard pressed to find one side hates war more than the other.

 

[Wu Wei]

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

Never said it was fabricated, but I am thinking, considering his affiliation, that it is rather one sided as far a sources go to support his argument.

You believe what you wish, I am not so easily convinced

 

[Revoltingest]

That for sure, I'd be hard pressed to find one side hates war more than the other.

Hatred seems to wax & wane depending upon the party in the White House.

 

[Nous]

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

So you only have a claim about something not happening?

Have you understood that one cannot deduce an affirmative proposition from your absence of evidence? I've noted that fact once and asked you that question once already. Not answering questions you're asked is your strategy rather than mine.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you only have a claim about something not happening?
Have you understood that one cannot deduce an affirmative proposition from your absence of evidence? I've noted that fact once and asked you that question once already. Not answering questions you're asked is your strategy rather than mine.

That is a lot of words to say, "Nuh uh!".

 

[Nous]

Never said it was fabricated, but I am thinking, considering his affiliation, that it is rather one sided as far a sources go to support his argument.

Then show that what you're "thinking" actually reflects reality.

 

[Nous]

So you only have a claim about something not happening?

Have you understood that one cannot deduce an affirmative proposition from your absence of evidence? I've noted that fact once and asked you that question once already. Not answering questions you're asked is your strategy rather than mine.

That is a lot of words to say, "Nuh uh!".

Still no answers? Are my questions too painful for you?

 

[Mindmaster]

Still no answers? Are my questions too painful for you?

When someone indicates that something that contradicts your beliefs is possible, it's on you to provide evidence that would defend your beliefs as much as it is on them to do the same, if we are talking about debates. However, this isn't a debate forum repeatedly asking for citations is basically accusing them of being a liar and a weak ad hominem attack. You can Google what they stated, but you want to get into the discussion of attacking them (genetic fallacy/weak ad hom) or their source (same). People are tired of playing the game, if you're lazy stop wasting our time. We're not feeding the trolls.

 

[Wu Wei]

Then show that what you're "thinking" actually reflects reality.

Interesting statement, which actually would take a lot of research on my part and most of which based on the author's lack of sighted sources is not verifiable. All I have to go on, if the author is the same person I linked my first response to, is his political affiliation which is democrat. Which leads me to believe he is not likely to write an unbiased article about republicans

Like I said, you believe whatever it is you wish to believe, I doubt you want to believe otherwise. What I said already is based in reality

I am thinking, considering his affiliation, that it is rather one sided as far a sources go to support his argument. (note he has given no sources to support his argument)

and You believe what you wish, I am not so easily convinced

 

[columbus]

At times, it seems I could claim we beat the Nazis in WW2,
& someone would demand evidence.

This reminds me of your unwillingness to believe the CIA when they say that cutting edge Russian hackers supply Wikileaks with material.
Tom

 

[Nous]

When someone indicates that something that contradicts your beliefs is possible, it's on you to provide evidence that would defend your beliefs as much as it is on them to do the same, if we are talking about debates.

Evidently you are not familiar with the rules of debate: http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm

See especially:

5. He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.​

 

[Nous]

Interesting statement, which actually would take a lot of research on my part and most of which based on the author's lack of sighted sources is not verifiable. All I have to go on, if the author is the same person I linked my first response to, is his political affiliation which is democrat. Which leads me to believe he is not likely to write an unbiased article about republicans

Like I said, you believe whatever it is you wish to believe, I doubt you want to believe otherwise. What I said already is based in reality

I am thinking, considering his affiliation, that it is rather one sided as far a sources go to support his argument. (note he has given no sources to support his argument)

and You believe what you wish, I am not so easily convinced

I assume all this means that you cannot substantiate your claim that there is something wrong with the figures Mellman cited or his conclusions about them. Right?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

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?

Perhaps you will find this article interesting.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/on-the-liberal-bias-of-facts/?_r=0
Among other points it raises is the oft repeated phrase among conservatives that "Humpff! Your source has a liberal bias!". When the source is actually simply the facts.

 

[Wu Wei]

I assume all this means that you cannot substantiate your claim that there is something wrong with the figures Mellman cited or his conclusions about them. Right?

No, it means Melman's article without citation is based on his opinion and it is next to impossible to substantiate an opinion. Also I mean you already believe this article whole heartedly and are taking it as gospel and I have no desire to spend the hours researching this since it is not all that important to me, I already know that it is based on ubsubstatinate opinion and you have no desire to believe otherwise. In a nutshell I see no reason to waste my time on something that matters very little to me nor do I see any reason trying to change the opinion of someone who has no desire to do so no matter what the proof.

Like I said, and this is the last time I will say it, you believe whatever you want to believe, but since the article is without citation and he is very much a Democrat, it is not to be taken as factual, it is simply his opinion based on how he sees it.

Without citation to back it up it is at best opinion

 

[Revoltingest]

Still no answers? Are my questions too painful for you?

No pain at all.
But some demands made upon me just aren't reasonable.

 

[Lighthouse]

I recall that after the Access Hollywood tape, he said he couldn't look his 15-year-old daughter in the eye and vote for Trump. Did he flip-flop after that--just because Trump would have an "R" behind his name?

If we go by his words, I'd say he changed his mind of "endorsement," he never said he wouldn't "vote" .....because Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton.
It's not like the "D's" or "R's" are strutting out a Ghandi. Most don't endorse the words from that recording, it doesn't mean they won't vote for Donald.
Whether it's because he has an "R" behind his name, it's pretty irrelevant. Mellman isn't citing anything new... human infallibility, changing minds, party loyalty. Add the element of having an "untraditional" political candidate and it's easy to exploit. The main thing is to not get too excited.

 

[Revoltingest]

This reminds me of your unwillingness to believe the CIA when they say that cutting edge Russian hackers supply Wikileaks with material.
Tom

There's a difference....a big'n.
- WW2 & our defeating the Nazis has massive evidence for its existence. I personally knew many guys who fought in it. They're all dead now, so I can't get them to offer evidence. It would be decried as "anecdotal" anyway.
- No expert I've yet heard has claimed certainty that the Russians were behind the hack.
Do you now claim this?
Even so, where's the evidence? Oh, that's right.....they're secret patterns which are consistent with Ivan.

Were I a lefty, trained by Alternet or Huff Po, I'd be screaming "False equivalency!" by now.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

My experience has been, overwhelmingly, that Trumpers (voting Republican) are very knowledgeable and mid-middle to upper-middle class with post-grad degrees in about 30% of the cases. They consider themselves redpilled, and do not trust the media/do lots of independent research. Straight-line Republicans who will vote for no one else are usually on the lower end of the educational scale and low info, just like the bulk of the Democratic voters of any caste. Democratic voters are far less likely to be knowledgeable in regard to economic, business, or foreign affairs mostly because their party works so hard to deceive them. You are supposed to vote Democrat because Republicans are racist, bigoted, hate LGBT, yadda... Who cares about the real issues? (Despite the fact that the Trail of Tears, Slavery, Japanese Internment, and Jim Crow, as well as anti-LGBT were originally Democratic ideas!)

I'm sorry @Mindmaster but you seem to be stuck in a prior century. Please keep in mind that the real point is not Repubs vs Dems, but rather Conservatives vs Progressives. To that point, the historical items you cite at the end of your post were from eras when the Dems were the Conservative party, and the Repubs were the Progressives of their age....and more power to them (back then).

The current Repub/Conservative group is bigotted and against equal rights for LGBT along with many other groups. This is not open for opinion or debate: it is simply a fact. It is written directly into their platform....http://qz.com/738299/reminder-this-is-the-republican-partys-platform-on-lgbt-rights/

As for modern day Trump supporters and their educational demographics....

One way to understand Trump’s longevity is to look more closely at his supporters. Trump’s backers tend to be whiter, slightly older and less educated than the average Republican voter. But perhaps more importantly, his supporters have shown signs of being misinformed. Political science research has shown that the behavior of misinformed citizens is different from those who are uninformed, and this difference may explain Trump’s unusual staying power.
-- http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-supporters-appear-to-be-misinformed-not-uninformed/​

I recall several conversations with Conservative colleagues, which I found both funny and depressing. Upon seeing the national map of blue and red zones, the stiking feature I pointed out is how the cities are often blue, compared to the surrounding farmlands. I immediately identified that this represents the higher density of college graduates and more widely travelled populous in the metropolitan zones, along with their frequent interaction with multiculturalism. My misinformed colleagues simply blamed it all on uneducated inner-city blacks.

Here is a summary of demographic studies by the (now biased?) Pew Research Center....http://www.people-press.org/2016/10...basic-facts-not-just-policies-are-in-dispute/

 

[Acim]

So in other words, it means exactly what I said: they want him to be President because he's the one with an "R" behind his name, but they know he isn't moral, intelligent or otherwise fit for the office.

I see Trump as more moral, more intelligent and more fit for the office.