Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is easy to show how Trump is a traitor. How do you think that Biden is one? At least that appears to be your implication.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How can some Americans support a traitor for a President?
- Thread starter sayak83
- Start date
It can't be that "easy" if half of the country doesn't see it. I never wrote nor implied any such thing about Biden.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Right. Many view Trump as a patriot.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Do you really think that it is half? It appears that the number is closer to one third:
Nearly two-thirds of Americans think Jan. 6 charges against Trump are serious: POLL
A majority of Americans (51%) think Tuesday's indictment of Donald Trump related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election is very serious, a ABC News/Ipsos poll found
I wrote "about" on purpose. There are polls and then there are polls. Polls other than the one you cited have it differently. I don't see much value in any "my dog is better than your dog" type arguments. Based on the results of the 2020 election, arguably the most certain "poll" of all, about half the country support (or supported if you prefer) Trump.Do you really think that it is half? It appears that the number is closer to one third:
Nearly two-thirds of Americans think Jan. 6 charges against Trump are serious: POLL
A majority of Americans (51%) think Tuesday's indictment of Donald Trump related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election is very serious, a ABC News/Ipsos poll foundabcnews.go.com
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
I haven't read the other replies, but here is my understanding.
The people who support him fall into 2 general categories.
The first is the easiest to explain. They think all American politicians are equally awful, equally criminal, and the only difference between them is who gets caught. Because of this, criminal convictions, and wrong doing by an American politician makes no impact on them. "They" are all the same. The details distinguishing any and all American policians are ignored. Why? It's the same circular reasoning I've been posting about recently. It's a real problem. Also, this group doesn't trust the media to give them accurate news about American politics unless it is reporting the faults and failures. In politics, they are extreme pessimists. There's several reasons why this is emotionally and intellectually rewarding for them. For these reasons, they hate goverment, by default, and naturally vote republican because they are supposed to be the "small" government party, and hopefully they will lower taxes and be the lesser of two evils.
The second group is a little more complex to describe. This is a faith-based group. There's many factors at play which prop-up the convicted criminal as a hero who is being attacked by a "deep-state-conspiracy". Part of faith-based reasoning involves this idea of "compounding-increasing-probability". I put it in quotes because they have it entirely flip-flopped. It goes like this. Faith-based reasoning takes improbable loosley related explanations for phenomena and tries to link those improbable explanations together into a chain. They realize that each individual explanation on its own is unlikely, but they erroneously think that by linking up all of the highly improbable explanations they will "add-up" to something which "points-to" their fringe improbable theory. But, like I said, they have it backwards. Linking up 3 unlikely loosely related possibilities reduces the likelyhood of the chain as a whole. It does not increase it. They've got it backwards.
So, using this faith-based reasoning, the individual in the 2nd category starts collecting individual unlikely explanations for phemomena which reimagine current events such that Trump is actually the hero, not the villian. They're on the internet, they're consuming fringe and/or unreliable media, and they are collecting these unlikely explanations of events, and forming a chain in their mind which is imagined to producing an undeniable conclusion. In addition they are on social media where these fringe theories blossom, are reinforced, and those who believe in them are encouraged.
Once the conclusion is reached, they become a "Trumper". From here on out, any additional fringe theory about a "deep-state-conspiracy" is just one more link in the chain which they already erroneously think has added up to 100% certainty, when in fact it has plummeted, and is continuing to plummet rapidly into single digit territory, because, the longer the chain of these unlikley explanations of current events, the compounding is decreasing the likeyhood of the fringe theory, not increasing it.
This is why, at this point, any bad news that comes out against Trump in America is actually helping him. His supporters will take any bad publicity, craft an improbable flipped upside-down explanation for it, and add it to the list of all the others, magically reinforcing their alternate reality. These improbable explanations can easily be distributed and consumed by the "Trumpers" via social media. The response to anything bad that is reported about Trump can be rapidly squashed and flipped into an advantage overnight.
So that's it. You've got a coalition of extreme pessimists and extreme optimists in an unholy alliance supporting a criminal politician in America. And there's very little to be done about it.
Last edited:
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
My theory is that, since most of them are white Christians, they will support any thug who promises destroy the purported communist Democrat party. There is ample history for this in the world: Christian support for Francisco Franco during the Spanish Civil War; support for Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler as they suppressed and outlawed Communist parties and Labor unions in their countries.
Last edited:
In the same way Democrats defended Bill Clinton.
Tribal loyalty is the mind killer.
Good point, Trump is not just a traitor, he is also a rapist.
He's a renaissance man of crime.
Can one be both a patriot and a traitor?
Wasn't George Washington a Major, then a Colonel / Virginia Commander-in-Chief in the British Army in the mid 1750's?
What the hell is wrong with you? That's totally disgusting, to punish a person for voting for someone legally. And, no - not all felons lose their voting rights. It depends on the state. This extremist rhetoric from the Trump haters is getting out of hand. Like the people who wished death on those who didn't want the Covid jabs. Democrats - the party of love, compassion and reason!
As I said, the propaganda is working!
Exactly. The left has become what it hates and it'sbeen crazy to see.What the hell is wrong with you? That's totally disgusting, to punish a person for voting for someone legally. And, no - not all felons lose their voting rights. It depends on the state. This extremist rhetoric from the Trump haters is getting out of hand. Like the people who wished death on those who didn't want the Covid jabs. Democrats - the party of love, compassion and reason!
What the hell is wrong with you? That's totally disgusting, to punish a person for voting for someone legally. And, no - not all felons lose their voting rights. It depends on the state. This extremist rhetoric from the Trump haters is getting out of hand. Like the people who wished death on those who didn't want the Covid jabs. Democrats - the party of love, compassion and reason!
There are individuals to be found on either side of America's political divide who use extremist rhetoric. That doesn't mean that somebody who posts the outrageous notion that people who voted for Trump should have their voting rights removed means that person is representative of all Democrats. Just as this posting made by a Republican candidate for Mississippi Governor does not mean that he is representative of all Republicans.
I believe that you will find a majority of Democrats who would be appalled by the suggestion of taking away a citizen's voting rights because of how he voted, just as I believe that you will find a majority of Republicans who would be appalled by the above example demonizing transgender people to justify that they be lined up and shot by firing squad.
It is this outraged quickness to judge an entire group by the words and actions of some that is making it so near-impossible to have civil discourse in this nation.
By the way, Robert Foster was confronted by his fellow Republican, Spencer Ritchie, for what he posted. Spencer Ritchie served as the executive director of the Mississippi Republican Party from 2014 to 2017 and is now on the Mississippi Ethics Commission. His response regarding his Republican colleague is as follows:
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Does Trump ever denounce right wing violence? Has he ever? He mocked Paul Pelosi a couple of days ago.
I despair of expecting Trump to do what is decent and right, but maybe he has had an occasional shining (and conscience-driven) moment.
I only know that a Republican criticized Robert Foster because I went to the trouble of finding it. That's because I truly do believe that most people want to be decent and do the right thing, even to the point of transcending politics.
I challenge everyone here to make an effort to equally find those who speak out against hatefulness, regardless of whichever political party you support.
Yeah, but he wasn't very successful, so it should only count as 'half'...
Actually, Lafayette is a great case study in the interplay between government, morality, and military, imho.