This is a fantastic response. I would upvote the hell out of your reply if I had any understanding of what those young punks are doing on reddit…
But with your response there’s a balance. I’m looking for the people that, for reasons unknown to me [hence why I originally posed] that are not balanced in this regard.
There many many many Trump supporters that just fall in line and believe/repeat everything he says. Now, I agree that it could /should not be 100%, but the balance is off when compared to what The Straight Dope is all about. It’s like they have put on a mask when it comes to things Trump does/says, that if applied to the usual hunt for truth/facts here on the SDMB would easily be denounced.
And this could be for any president, Trump has just been the biggest one I’ve ever seen in this regard.
We see again an OP where the claim is made that the Left way is the only right way to think.
Don’t think too many people actually hold that specific attitude; seems like a strawman, and an ad hominem to boot.
The Right Wing Way being reliably the WORST available Way, OTOH, is probably easier to find in the wild (as well as being more objectively supportable).
Not at all. If you read through the post, I said that if the republicans had put up anyone but Trump I would have voted for that person instead of Hillary.
But, go ahead and let’s even ignore that part. As I said I want to understand another person’s POV that doesn’t agree with mine. I don’t want to tear the person down.
So, if you, Saint Cad, are a person who seeks out facts and truths on a regular basis, but choose to ignore those facts when it comes to things Trump says, then I want hear from you. Because I may not agree with you, but I want to understand you…
Or you can try to make it a black & white thing as your reply quoted above implies… but you’d be wrong…
In my opinion, it comes down to the ends justify the means mentality. And this is by no means exclusive to Trump supporters. Can those people be so called “true Dopers?” I don’t see why not. It just requires compartmentalizing certain aspects of ideology from a more general outlook. It’s a bit like super devout religious scientists.
At some there is a contradiction between faith and reason yet somehow these folks manage to reconcile internally to some degree the disparity.
So is it as simple as that, though? Faith? Rabid Trump supporters have so much FAITH in Trump that they are willing to ignore/shun all logical facts and data that show something contradictory to what he just said (Even when HE is contradicting himself)?
I’ve never been able to shove logic and reason that much into a box to let my faith prevail (I’m thinking Daffy Duck jamming the Genie back into the lamp screaming MINE MINE MINE but replacing it with FAITH FAITH FAITH and the genie being logic and reason). https://i.gifer.com/87V.gif
Perhaps that’s why I’m not able to wrap my head around this one.
I think it’s probably related to how you missed the entire point of the post you were responding to and latched onto the word faith.
The fallacy of this whole line of thinking as that there is no True Doper.
Faith was more so the possible linchpin that explains the reconciliation that I don’t usually suffer from. Faith may be too strong a word, but it fits.
And I’m not knocking anyone’s “faith” (or end justifying the means mentality). I’m just trying to understand it better and Octopus reply really helped with that.
Well, we all are straight dopers if we’re here. 
It goes back to Octo’s reply. You take your “faith” or your “end justifying the means” and that is used as a solvent that wipes away logic and facts that, in any other situation, you would not let it wipe away that easily.
I understand faith. And it does fit slightly snugly with filling the gap I was having trouble coming to terms with. I’m just trying to make sure I’m not accepting a convenient answer.
The post you were responding to has zero to do with faith.
I’m curious.
Those of you in this thread who have said you think that Trump is awful but Clinton is worse: what precisely do you think is worse about Clinton? And what were you afraid she would have done if elected?
If someone is pro-life, for instance, Hillary would most definitely have nominated pro-choice justices to SCOTUS, and acted in a far more pro-choice way than Trump.
If someone is pro-traditional marriage, Hillary would definitely be far more pro-SSM/LGBT.
On 90% of issues, Hillary would have taken the more liberal stance, if one is conservative.
The only thing similar that I can think of is an abused person not leaving their abuser.
There are others of course. People that refuse to admit they where wrong. Others that would only like to see others worse off than themselves as a way to ‘elevate’ themselves. If they can make others worse off than they are, they must be doing better.
But those are, and were at the time, pretty standard Democratic positions. And while there are indeed some people who for those reasons wouldn’t vote for any Democrat, there are others who seem to instead have been vehemently opposed to Clinton in particular.
I like to think that, for the most part, you, the dopers, have a thing for believing that you are always right, and only accepting opinions that agree with your own. (With some objectiveness tossed in)
In other words, fairly human, and when it gets too irritating, I can always go and do something else.
So I do spend very little time in Elections or Great Debates.
And I’m not even pro-Trump.
I’d politely suggest to you that the SDMB is not a good place to encounter such people, if they exist at all (a claim towards which I’m deeply skeptical).
I missed where people said that in this thread, but it’s close enough to my own feelings on the matter that I feel it’d be appropriate to respond: I was concerned she might start a war with Russia, for starters.
I think that in general you can believe in facts and objectivity but also have a strong bias in a particular area that makes you interpret all data through a lens.
Think of someone like Ben Shapiro. He claims that objectivity is important, but when it comes to…well, quite a lot of issues actually, he clearly starts with a conclusion and tries to cherry pick data to fit it, ignoring all else. And also engages in a number of rhetorical tricks. It’s interesting to speculate on the degree to which he is self-aware of this.
I don’t want to hijack the thread to be about BS (interesting his initials match a common abbreviation…); I’m just trying to give an example of the psychology where someone could generally embrace facts and logic but have a huge blind spot(s).
There is a very strong correlation between support for Trump and hostility to immigration. So I am sure someone with that feeling could handwave most of the false facts trump says about immigration and find some true stat that hispanics are disproportionately more likely to X, and run with it. Claim that Trump is right for the wrong reasons, essentially.