Can true Straight Dopers = Pro Trump?

Frumpy_Jones · February 10, 2017, 4:15pm

But you’re not my target demographic, Sage Rat. You’re what I was expecting the majority of Dopers to be who voted for Trump. You have hope that he learns and are willing, it seems, to totally forgive his outright lies, but you’re acknowledging them as lies (At least, that’s how I read your response).

I want the person who has what I think are two diametrically opposed beliefs:
[ol]
[li]I come to the Straight Dope because I believe in fighting ignorance, and expanding my mind to understanding those things I do not.[/li][li]I believe Trump has been speaking the truth and defend most/all of his statements since he became president.[/li][/ol]

It is this person whom I seek to understand.

Quartz · February 10, 2017, 4:40pm

Good luck, because I doubt there are any.

Jackmannii · February 10, 2017, 5:16pm

If we’re going to mandate that all Dope posts feature only Facts and Truth, it’s gonna be a really lonely place.

sleestak · February 10, 2017, 5:24pm

There are two giant flaws with your thinking.

Despite the claims, the 'Dope isn’t all about fighting ignorance. Really. It is a message board with a hard left lean that sometimes has some good people providing some good information on a wide variety of topics. Most of the time, though, it is an echo chamber. Its primary purpose is to make money for the overlords, oops, I mean the Chicago Reader. Get over the idea that this place is all about Truth™. It is about a silly column that answers generally silly questions.

Second, no one believes *any *politician is %100 truthful. Or even mostly truthful.

Now, a serious question. If you are all about fighting ignorance and defending the TRUTH™, why don’t you go somewhere that has actual Trump supporters and ask the question? Get actual answers from people who actually hold the views you want to understand?

Seriously, asking people defend or Trump or explain why Trump is the Bestest Evar on the 'Dope is like asking Hillary Clinton to defend Monica Lewinsky.

The TLDR version, the target demographic you want doesn’t exist on the 'Dope.

Slee

FloatyGimpy · February 10, 2017, 5:44pm

I find this confusing. Did you vote for Trump? Because if you voted for Trump, you can’t turn around and say you didn’t vote for Trump. Or maybe you mean you voted for someone else other than Trump or Hillary?

If you did vote for Trump, are you still pleased with your choice? I find the whole “Hillary is teh EVAL” thing to be utterly bizarre. Especially when the other choice was a narcissistic, billionaire game-show host without a lick of experience.

squidfood · February 10, 2017, 5:47pm

It’s possible for a community, even a loose, drop-in anonymous community, to have a stated ethos and purpose, and try to adhere to it, without calling it an “echo chamber”. In a long-running debate (e.g. left v right), individuals - all of us - will act emotionally at times and not adhere to that ethos, and echo and shout, but that doesn’t mean we can’t strive (and be encouraged) to maintain the higher standards.

But these aren’t intrinsic properties of individuals - a person isn’t defined as a “true doper”. It’s better to focus on actions, and say “it’s impossible to defend many/most of Trump’s ignorant/lying statements or methods while staying true to the fighting-ignorance standards of the Dope.”

Frumpy_Jones · February 10, 2017, 6:32pm

Well, that was my thought/theory/hypothesis (that people here wouldn’t accept what Trump has been saying as fact, regardless if they voted for him). I have spoken to many Trump supporters. In Depth during the campaign, and since he’s taken office It’s how I learned Trump was going to win despite being a misogynistic idiot who lies and screws people over all the time. All of that was still more desirable than Hillary and where the Democrats lost sight of the lower-middle/middle class.

A perfect example is in my town. Trump came here three times. Each one was just a big open venue where all just showed up.

Hillary also came here three times. Two were a $1,000 a plate event, and one was an open venue.

But I digress. The point was, these same people I spoke with are very much okay (And some actually believe) that what Trump has been saying is 100% fact and we’re all being blinded my the “fake news”. And I understand their reasons. And every one of them is someone I would never expect to find here have a debate over [insert topic here] or reading about how flies land on ceilings.

So I can easily accept/understand Dopers who voted for Trump based on whatever reason they want, but just wanted to assure myself that they see/acknowledge how crazy he’s being, and hold him to task for it, even if they still support him.

And if that delta exists here, I wanna understand their perspective

Boozahol_Squid_P.I · February 10, 2017, 6:39pm

Take a politician you’ve supported in the past. When they did something you didn’t completely support, did you acknowledge how crazy they were being, and take them to task? Or did you just shrug and get on with your life, because politicians lie or compromise or negotiate and… and the grocery store is closing in 15 minutes, so I need to go get a gallon of milk?

Lumpy · February 10, 2017, 10:47pm

I voted in the manner most likely to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House. It is only regrettably that this meant voting for Trump. It is a testament to my low opinion of Hillary that even Donald Trump was the lesser of two evils. And apparently I had lots of company in that opinion.

iiandyiiii · February 10, 2017, 10:48pm

Are you still convinced of that? If Trump successfully managed to institute a Muslim ban, as he advocated in his campaign, would you still feel this way?

Pearl_Clutching_Provocateur · February 10, 2017, 11:12pm

I proudly voted for Trump, and I’m a true Straight Doper who often confounds my fellow posters with facts. But in all honesty, I probably wouldn’t post much if Hillary had won.

jshore · February 11, 2017, 3:26am

And who says I can’t learn any useful fact from a conservative?!?

Arcite · February 11, 2017, 4:52am

Bingo. I’d like to reiterate something I posted in a previous thread:

Conservative dopers -- why do you think the SDMB leans left?

I would also add, and I think I’ve tried to make this point on these boards before, those who intone deeply about “this message board’s mission to fight ignorance,” as though the message board had some grand and weighty moral purpose, are a little full of themselves. “Fighting Ignorance Since 1973” is up there on the masthead because it’s on the masthead of The Straight Dope, the Chicago Reader column, which is a trivia column. It’s meant to be tongue-in-cheek. It started as a feature (and this was more relevant when it began, before you could Google almost anything) where people could write in and have those little “have you ever wondered…” curiosities satisfied. Here’s a sampling of questions that have been answered by the newspaper column, pulled from the archives:
[ul]
[li]Are bananas radioactive?[/li][li]Why aren’t walnuts killing us?[/li][li]What happened to vitamins F, G, H, I, and J?[/li][li]How many G’s does my laundry pull during the spin cycle?[/li][li]Why does the alarm clock snooze button give you nine extra minutes, not ten?[/li][/ul]
While all those are very interesting, they’re pretty much little curious matters of trivia, not representations of some grave, society-wide ignorance that Wise People have some grand moral imperative to correct. Hence the tongue-in-cheek motto, “Fighting Ignorance.”

GIGObuster · February 11, 2017, 6:37am

Sure, just silly questions. [Sarcasm]

Did George W. Bush go AWOL during his time in the National Guard?

Are vaccinations worth it?

If we all join in the effort and achieve high rates of vaccination, then some of these diseases can literally be wiped from the earth (in the same way that smallpox was completely eliminated through a worldwide vaccination campaign). Elimination of the diseases means elimination of the need for vaccinations as well; surely that's a goal no one can argue against.

— SDStaff Jill, Straight Dope Science Advisory Board

What are the most outrageous claims ever made on the presidential campaign trail?

The nearest thing to what we’re seeing now, though, may have been a sitting president whose public statements were so wild he didn’t even get a shot at re-election. During maybe the worst speaking tour in U.S. political history, Andrew Johnson in 1866 suggested that divine Providence itself might have taken out Abraham Lincoln to get the right man in charge of the Union, routinely compared himself to Jesus, and went way off script in response to hecklers, at one point proposing that a congressional adversary be hanged. In Indianapolis he was shouted down entirely by an unruly and ultimately riotous crowd. Johnson, to quote the articles of impeachment later filed against him, “did … make and deliver with a loud voice certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers, and laughter of the multitudes then assembled and in hearing.” Yes, there was a time when being a provocative blowhard could be considered an impeachable offense for a president. Now, I grimly note, a sizable chunk of the electorate considers it a qualification for office.

— Cecil Adams

If I were an evil genius, how could I go about melting the ice caps?

The beauty of this scheme, as evil plans go, is that once the heat built up to a certain point, cascading events would likely take you the rest of the way. As the temperature rose, melting ice would release additional carbon dioxide and methane trapped within it, accelerating the warming trend. Thawing permafrost would release still more CO2, and if the oceans got toasty enough you could end up with a major release of frozen methane lying on the seabed, a process that’s thought to have been a cause of the Great Permian Extinction. Evil plans don’t get much more grandiose than that.

The problem from a cinematic standpoint is that no one genius, however evil, could pull this stunt off. The only way to generate enough CO2 would be combustion on a staggering scale — you’d need to enlist the bulk of the earth’s population in a decades-long campaign to burn through a significant fraction of the planet’s organic materials. Even if the plan were technically feasible — and I’m sure many in the evil genius guild would scoff — nobody would buy it as a movie premise. Everybody pitches in to melt the ice caps? Come on, you think we’re all fools?

— Cecil Adams

Mind you, I do think that the reason why is it that a lot of serious issues seems to be left leaning is only because of what the political leaders of a party are supporting at the time. More than once I pointed that if by Magic Teddy Roosevelt had been president now several issues like the environment would had been given importance and Republicans in congress would not had needed to grab the idiot ball as they are doing right now.

Currently, regarding all the columns cited, Donald Trump is on the ignorant side* and pushing the whole party even more on that path.

Yes, even in the Iraq war he is still insisting that he was opposed to the invasion, when he was vague and close to the invasion the clearest statement was to go for that foolish war.

Bone · February 11, 2017, 7:05am

Not everyone values the same things in the same magnitude. That difference in valuation can lead to many different, yet consistent outcomes.

astorian · February 11, 2017, 7:48pm

I’ve already said here that I didn’t vote for Trump- I voted for Evan McMullin, though I knew it made no difference (Trump was sure to win Texas no matter what I did).

Could I make a case for reluctantly voting for Trump? Yes. Can I understand a principled, intelligent conservative who argued, “This is the least worst option”? Yes.

But I can’t excuse anyone who’s actually enthusiastically pro-Trump.

Balthisar · February 12, 2017, 2:10am

I voted for Gary, but I openly hoped that Hillary wouldn’t win. Yup, I was among those that thought his candidacy announcement was a joke (hmmm… I seem to have been wrong), and I was one of those who though he would calm down once in office (hmmm… I seem to have been wrong). I always was of the opinion, though, that if he won it would be a positive thing; we get the President that we deserve, and he would really shake things up and get people active (not wrong on this one!).

I don’t agree with most of his positions or attitudes, but I don’t agree with Hillary’s, either. A border wall is stupid (I believe in open borders), Muslim banning is stupid (open borders plus rational mathematics about terror attack likelihood), I like DeVos and hate teachers’ unions, so that’s a plus.

Do I support him? Not really. Am I against him? It’s too soon to tell.

I’m not sure how I’m not a real Doper. In my time here I’ve changed from anti-gay Marriage, changed from anti-hybrid cars, changed from human caused global warming isn’t happening. I still don’t support mandated net neutrality, though, and I tend to favor markets over governments. ACA was stupid.

tl;dr: still better than Hillary, but I’m keeping my fingers crossed that this dude doesn’t really flake out.

GIGObuster · February 12, 2017, 2:45am

Too late…

For years, Trump has promoted the false link between vaccines and autism, and whether he himself is an anti-vaxer or not, he certainly has courted anti-vaxers at every turn on his road to the White House. This meeting with Kennedy suggests he will continue to do so.

Even before he entered politics, Trump said he believed vaccines cause autism. In an interview with the Sun-Sentinel in 2007, he said:

“When I was growing up, autism wasn’t really a factor…And now all of a sudden, it’s an epidemic. Everybody has their theory. My theory, and I study it because I have young children, my theory is the shots. We’ve giving these massive injections at one time, and I really think it does something to the children.”

In 2014, Trump tweeted: “Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn’t feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!”

During the second Republican debate, he told a similar story: “You take this little beautiful baby, and you pump—I mean, it looks just like it’s meant for a horse, not for a child, and we’ve had so many instances, people that work for me,” he said. “Just the other day, two years old, two-and-a-half years old, a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine, and came back, and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic.”’

There is absolutely no evidence that links vaccines to autism. The only study that ever found a link was later revealed to be fraudulent, and was retracted. But still the myth persists, and has now been perpetuated by the president-elect of the United States.

Lumpy · February 13, 2017, 12:33am

On the other hand, study after study have found no link between silicone breast implants and systemic or long-term health problems. Yet the anecdotal evidence is huge.

GIGObuster · February 13, 2017, 2:02am

What I knew about that issue is that in the USA the anecdotal evidence (that was in the end not supported by any good theories or mechanism supporting a link to the silicone implants) really made a mess of things. While that ignorance was going on, the rest of the world continued using the implants. Of course, lots of improvements have been done. But in essence medical science did notice back in 1996 how we were setting the ground that allowed guys like Trump to be elected into office.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199606063342306#t=article

This is the story of the controversy over the safety of silicone-gel–filled breast implants — a controversy that has raged in this country for nearly a decade and is still not resolved. It is a story fascinating in itself, but one particularly worth telling here because of the insights it affords into how contemporary American society deals with the problems of evaluating health risks.

The breast-implant story illustrates better than almost any other event in recent times how litigation, fear, bias, and greed can interfere with scientific efforts to answer an important public health question. Perhaps most troubling of all, it clearly shows that in deciding about health risks, our courts and a substantial segment of the American public seem comfortable with methods that can only be described as antiscientific and irrational.

Yet, like it or not, science and the rules of evidence and reason are the only reliable tools we have to investigate risks to human health. If we want to develop effective public policies to deal with health risks, we dare not abandon science.

In addition, the widespread and growing cynicism about government and business leads people to assume the worst; they are only too ready to believe that they are knowingly subjected to health risks, which, they may believe, were deliberately minimized or covered up.

There is also cynicism about scientists and the scientific method itself. There can be little doubt that we are now experiencing a groundswell of antiscience feeling, which leads many people to discount scientific evidence, often in favor of anecdotes, irrational theories, or “other ways of knowing.” When mass lawsuits are involved, the impediments to public acceptance of the scientific process become virtually insurmountable.

Courts may find health hazards even when there is no good evidence. The public’s alarm then takes on a life of its own, driven often by the huge amounts of money at stake in product-liability suits. Thus, the path from medical evidence to public action is by no means direct or smooth.

Many people have become alienated from science and scientific habits of thought — at a time when we need science more than ever to help us find our way through an increasing number of serious and complicated questions involving risks to health and safety.

To reverse the alienation we need a better public understanding of science, beginning with more and better science education in schools at all levels. That requires more than a field trip, a bug collection, and a computer. It also means attention to scientific thinking, including an understanding of the nature of evidence, the concepts of chance and error, and the value of skepticism. We also need better media reporting on scientific issues.

The best science reporting is very good, but most stories about health risks fall far below that level. When reporters writing about science have little or no training for their task and their editors seem more interested in entertaining or startling readers than in educating them, the public is not well served. Courts compound the problem by largely ignoring the rules of science and handing down verdicts that fly in the face of evidence. Given these conditions, it is no wonder that the public finds the scientific approach so foreign.

And yet, without a better understanding of science, we stand to live out Carl Sagan’s darkest vision: “It’s a foreboding I have — maybe ill-placed — of an America in my children’s generation, or my grandchildren’s generation . . . when, clutching our horoscopes, our critical faculties in steep decline, unable to distinguish between what’s true and what feels good, we slide, almost without noticing, into superstition and darkness.”45

So, no, electing someone that selected people like DeVos and finding a congress voting for her does not really help America in the long run. Only a few ones will get rich by giving ignorance an even larger audience.

Topic		Replies	Views
Would A Conservative and/or Trump Supporter Rationally Explain This? Politics & Elections	381	20783	April 29, 2020
Who, here is voting for Trump? Politics & Elections	326	38314	October 29, 2016
Honest arguments for Trump Politics & Elections trump	169	2011	October 17, 2024
Trump voters explain themselves Politics & Elections	311	44443	January 14, 2017
Trump voters: explain yourselves The BBQ Pit	616	56000	October 22, 2016

Can true Straight Dopers = Pro Trump?

Related topics