# Trump voters: explain yourselves **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 24, 2016, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699 "2016-09-24T03:24:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2016, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/141 "2016-09-25T23:20:09Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > She’s untrustworthy. She’s going to steal the Whitehouse china. Didn’t she already, in January 2000? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2016, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/142 "2016-09-25T23:54:32Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > If Trump wins it will be, in large part, thanks to crap like that. If Trump wins it’ll be because the media is on his side, and because the American public is largely either stupid or evil. And the constant deferring to the Republicans and lying in their favor is the problem, not the tiny minority of people who actually dare seriously criticism them. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/143 "2016-09-26T00:03:44Z")
Hey now, if Lyin’ Ted says Trump is the best choice, then who am I to argue with such obvious integrity? ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/144 "2016-09-26T00:15:26Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Didn’t she already, in January 2000? I heard she and Bill personally peed in every coffee cup in the White House pantry. The thought of it made me feel better every time I saw Dubya and Cheney taking a breakfast meeting. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/145 "2016-09-26T00:23:57Z")
There is a post in the [Hillary thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=805596) and I took the liberty of moving my reply here, because it’s really more about Trump than about Hillary – my point being that anything one might fear from Hillary is multiplied about tenfold by Trump. > [@Trump voters: how SPECIFICALLY will Hillary damage the country in 4 years?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-how-specifically-will-hillary-damage-the-country-in-4-years/766858/9): > > Definitely not a Trump voter. But to list possible damaging outcomes they and others voice concern about for the next four-eight years of a Clinton presidency (not in order of likelihood): > > 1. U.S. involvement in serious foreign war(s), in part due to perceived need to boost the image of “toughness” of a woman chief executive, > > 2. one or more major scandals following the typical Clinton pattern, at minimum disruptive and at worst provoking impeachment or other Constitutional crisis, > > 3. nomination of one or more leftist Supreme Court justices to wreak whatever mischief one happens to fear, > > 4. big tax increases on the middle class as it becomes clear that the government is far short of money to meet its obligations, not to mention free college tuition and other goodies promised by Clinton, for which taxing the 1% (or 5%, or even 10%) will not remotely suffice. > > 5. large numbers of Americans will go blind if they have to look at her bizarre collection of Chairwoman Maoist pantsuits for any length of time.\* > > Of course, to some extent a number of these fears could apply in equal or greater intensity to a Trump presidency (substitute “far right” for “leftist” in #3, and “hairpieces/fake tan” for “pantsuits” in #5). > > \*OK, that’s one of _my_ chief concerns. :eek: Since you’ve already more or less dealt with #3 and #5, I’ll deal with the others. And I have to say, on #3, I’ve never seen liberal justices anywhere even remotely as activist and extremist as the Scalia-Alito-Thomas crew, who actually got their way whenever Roberts and Kennedy saw fit to join them, which was often. On #1: What if the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief was such an insecure pathological narcissist and full-blown psychotic that he has lashed out against, publicly insulted, and/or sued everyone who has ever criticized him? How would he react against nations that defied and insulted him, when he had the power not just to sue but to attack militarily? How long before the nuclear football got opened? Hillary may be hawkish, but she isn’t an insane megalomaniac. There’s a difference. On #2: When you consider Trump’s failed casino schemes, his failed airline, his deceptive condo sales practices for which he’s being sued pretty much everywhere anything has ever been built with his name on it, his criminal fraud around Trump University, his propensity to stiff his business partners, and his multiple strategic bankruptcies that enriched him while robbing his partners, just about everything Trump touches becomes a scandal. On #4: Trump is a career crook and financial incompetent who makes money by fraud and by stiffing everybody else, and has proposed that the US government should reneg on its debts and essentially sacrifice its most precious asset, public trust. Servicing public debt is the highest non-discretionary spending of the US government. Taxes ought to look just great for everyone when the US government has to pay exorbitant interest rates on it and its financials are treated just like Trump’s businesses and are flushed right down the toilet. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/146 "2016-09-26T00:27:19Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > That graphic lists 20 politicians. Would it be better with just eight names or so? The superfluous lines can be deleted readily with any image processing program. (Heck, I’d even volunteer to do it.) No, that’s not the issue. Have you not seen what a political post on Facebook looks like? I wish I hadn’t gotten rid of all of them on my Facebook, so I could show you. It’s not going to have some chart that you’ll have to look on how to interpret. I literally mean a post that contains the information in the post I stated. Only some slight simplification would be necessary. > [@](#): > > Trump: > False, Mostly False, Pants On Fire = 70% > > Clinton: > False, Mostly False, Pants On Fire = 28% > > She’s the liar? > > According to Politifact. Maybe there would be a pie chart, but the actual numbers still have to be there. There can be no need to actually interpret things. You won’t get a viral image by appealling to eggheads. And, yeah, I have a clear idea of what the thing would look like. But I’m unfortunately unable to do that sort of thing right now. I was just hoping someone already had, or that someone who was good with Photoshop could make one. The closest I’ve found it this: [https://c5.staticflickr.com/8/7304/27263757916\_8f603600cb\_z.jpg](https://c5.staticflickr.com/8/7304/27263757916_8f603600cb_z.jpg) But I still think it’s too charty, and forgets to actually have a tag line. Plus I don’t think it’s a good idea to mix and match which numbers you are comparing. And I think the image of Trump is offputting, and colors this as a “preach to the choir” style. Oh, well. Maybe I’ll work on one when I’m able to. Or try asking some people I think would be willing to do it. (Maybe Reddit’s r/hillaryclinton? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/147 "2016-09-26T00:46:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In my view, however, Politifact applies two different standards, each defensible on their own but clearly not harmonious with each other. And the choice of which standard to apply reliably correlates to the political leaning assisted by the finding. You’ve made a big claim, but you’ve provided very little evidence. You have one hypothetical situation and one that you claim is true but provide no link (and people are having trouble finding it.) Even if these were examples and fully linked, they would not prove a trend. You would need more data points. It is a standard tactic to attack the fact checkers. You need much bigger proof to allay the default–a fact checking organization that is biased will lose all credibility. Politifact has a lot of data out there. It would be trivial for someone to provide a systematic test of their statements to determine how accurate they are. That they haven’t suggests that the bias isn’t there. You need more than a hypothetical and half-remembered disagreement to disprove the null hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/148 "2016-09-26T00:54:09Z")
Lately I lump **Bricker** into the same category as **adaher**. Smarter than a **Clothahump** or **Shodan** but untrustworthy. I expect cites from them on any statement of fact. @ **Brickhead** - _If your lies about Politifact have any basis in fact, demonstrate that with factual citations … not more lies._ [QUOTE=Bricker] … a slip of the tongue – say, attributing a statement to the “Iraq Study Group,” instead of the “Iraq Survey Group,” – is rated “False.” It was uttered by a Republican, and was an absolutely true statement about the Iraq Survey Group. The Republican said it was the “Iraq Study Group,” and got “False.” [/QUOTE] This does sound bad of Politifact, but maybe there was some context. Perhaps the “Iraq Study Group” is a reputable research outfit, but “Iraq Survey Group” is a shill for the Cato Institute. But I’m not going to Google for it. I asked **Brickhead** for a cite. Until he comes up with one, I’ll just assume he’s lying. In fact the diction he used suggests that it was a lie all along. I don’t think even **adaher** is moronic enough to do this, but I wouldn’t put it past **Brickhead**. I’m guessing he’ll claim it was a hypothetical fact-check by a hypothetical Politifact about some hypothetical statement by a hypothetical Republioturd. Let’s see if an analogy can inform **Brickhead** of his own asininity. Brickhead: I hate Jake’s Steak House. Their food’s no good. Sentient Human: Oh? What’s wrong with it? Brickhead: Well, suppose they gave me ground pork when I asked for T-Bone steak. Sentient Human: Oh, is that what they did? Brickhead: No, that was just a hypothetical example. Judges must be delighted when this asshole appears in their courtrooms: Brickhead: Your honor, my client couldn’t have been jaywalking on 5th Avenue at 3:00. He has an alibi. Judge: Oh, where was he? Brickhead: Well, maybe he was in Jersey watching a movie. Judge: Any ticket stub? Brickhead: Well, that was just a hypothetical example. **Brickhead** , I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that once upon a time you did earn a law degree. Have you had a lobotomy since then? Or is it because of the drugs? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/149 "2016-09-26T00:58:53Z")
Scrolling through the thread, it appears the one you presented as a hypothetical was not one, and that someone did finally find the PP one. Most of my post still applies. You can’t just cherry pick two examples. Especially ones that are so far apart that the system may have changed. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/150 "2016-09-26T02:31:04Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Cite? [Iraq Survey vs. Iraq Study](http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/oct/09/fred-thompson/the-iraq-study-group-didnt-say-that/) And [Planned Parenthood claim that politician voted to criminalize abortion for rape victims.](http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/sep/13/planned-parenthood-votes/planned-parenthood-votes-says-joe-heck-voted-crimi/) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/151 "2016-09-26T02:32:35Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Scrolling through the thread, it appears the one you presented as a hypothetical was not one, and that someone did finally find the PP one. Which part of my post led you to believe I was presenting a hypothetical? > [@Bricker](#): > > That is, a slip of the tongue – say, attributing a statement to the “Iraq Study Group,” instead of the “Iraq Survey Group,” – is rated “False.” It was uttered by a Republican, and was an absolutely true statement about the Iraq Survey Group. The Republican said it was the “Iraq Study Group,” and got “False.” > [@](#): > > Most of my post still applies. You can’t just cherry pick two examples. Especially ones that are so far apart that the system may have changed. I’m sorry – “the system may have changed?” Is THAT a hypothetical? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/152 "2016-09-26T03:13:04Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > How would he react against nations that defied and insulted him, when he had the power not just to sue but to attack militarily? How long before the nuclear football got opened? If I’m not mistaken, the rest of the chain of command such as the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are not obligated to blindly obey an order by the Commander-In-Chief to launch nuclear weapons. If the CiC issued orders of doubtful sanity, I’m sure there would be a considerable amount of foot dragging. Also, again if I’m not mistaken, the President (and only the President) can _authorize_ the use of nukes but cannot directly _order_ their use. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/153 "2016-09-26T03:25:32Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > If I’m not mistaken, the rest of the chain of command such as the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are not obligated to blindly obey an order by the Commander-In-Chief to launch nuclear weapons. If the CiC issued orders of doubtful sanity, I’m sure there would be a considerable amount of foot dragging. This misses that of course, there will be a price to pay even there considering the unrest in the markets at the sight of that… The point I made stands regarding the costs America will have to suffer just to keep the insane ideas of Trump from being developed. Many in Arizona does like Joe Arpaio and they do not mind paying several million dollars for his hare brained ideas and to spend all that money to keep him out of jail and in office. But right now the many predijuced people in Arizona are the ones that are paying, **in the case of Trump all Americans will pay the price.** The point here is that it will not be as high as all out nuclear war (hopefully), but a hefty price to pay for several years of allowing guys like Arpaio running around with no Federal supervision and costing us a lot of grief by the way he will do deals with other nations and with Americans. And as he showed with Brexit Trump will not care that he would trip America economically, he already has expressed the general feeling that he will make money on that “new (raw) deal”. To stiff us is in his design. America should not bother to risk getting into those costs of containment and the costs his bad faith will cause to America and other nations. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/154 "2016-09-26T04:07:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > [Iraq Survey vs. Iraq Study](http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/oct/09/fred-thompson/the-iraq-study-group-didnt-say-that/) > > And > > [Planned Parenthood claim that politician voted to criminalize abortion for rape victims.](http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/sep/13/planned-parenthood-votes/planned-parenthood-votes-says-joe-heck-voted-crimi/) Honestly, Bricker, this seems like a statement that was technically correct vs a statement that was technically incorrect. The PP ad stated that” “Joe Heck voted to criminalize abortion for rape victims.” It depends on how you parse the sentence. Is punishment to fall upon rape victims that seek an abortion beyond the cutoff, or is the act (and therefore the provider) outlawed? It’s a little ambiguous, hence the half-true statement. The statement is true, if you parse it as “the act of abortion that falls outside these parameters would have been a crime.” If you believe they mean that the victims themselves would have been prosecuted, then that interpretation would have been false. The second case deals with not just a politician fumbling the name of the organization he is citing, but instead (inadvertently, in all likelihood) a completely different group. Is there a difference between citing a bipartisan group vs a CIA group? If he had simply fumbled the name of the report he was citing, I doubt Politifact would have gotten involved. But he cited a different, _existing_ group. I don’t know if that merits a grade of “False,” but technically speaking, it totally is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/155 "2016-09-26T04:45:35Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > Honestly, Bricker, this seems like a statement that was technically correct vs a statement that was technically incorrect. > > The PP ad stated that” “Joe Heck voted to criminalize abortion for rape victims.” It depends on how you parse the sentence. Is punishment to fall upon rape victims that seek an abortion beyond the cutoff, or is the act (and therefore the provider) outlawed? It’s a little ambiguous, hence the half-true statement. The statement is true, if you parse it as “the act of abortion that falls outside these parameters would have been a crime.” If you believe they mean that the victims themselves would have been prosecuted, then that interpretation would have been false. > > The second case deals with not just a politician fumbling the name of the organization he is citing, but instead (inadvertently, in all likelihood) a completely different group. Is there a difference between citing a bipartisan group vs a CIA group? If he had simply fumbled the name of the report he was citing, I doubt Politifact would have gotten involved. But he cited a different, _existing_ group. I don’t know if that merits a grade of “False,” but technically speaking, it totally is. But that’s my point. I’m fine with the “False,” for Iraq if we adopt a “technically speaking,” approach to judging. But how does Planned Parenthood’s statement get past the “technically speaking” barrier? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/156 "2016-09-26T06:08:53Z")
I don’t have any impression of Politico as an “honest broker” when it comes to assessing political veracity. No better than any of a number of politically oriented sites I read. No worse. Frankly, who cares? There have been any number of “pro-life” efforts to do an end-run around _Roe_ to make choice difficult if not illegal. This has involved creative approaches, like not making it illegal for a woman to get an abortion, just make it illegal for a doctor to perform one. Or insist that an abortion provider must meet the standards of the Mayo Clinic in order to “protect” women. There is a certain sameness to them all, they are all equally dishonest. Be that as it may, friend **Bricker** is so proud of his exactingly precise semantic parsing skills, it would be churlish not to let him show them off every once in a while. Fish gotta sing, birds gotta swim. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/157 "2016-09-26T09:43:33Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > I’m ordering my [Basket of Deplorables](https://s3.amazonaws.com/teeshirtpalace-production/spree/images/PMD4526-BLACK-AT/large/PMD4526-BLACK-AT.jpg?1473884107) t-shirt today. You wanna associate yourself with David Duke and other open white supremacists, go ahead, but I have no idea why anyone would want to do this (unless they’re okay with white supremacism). ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/158 "2016-09-26T13:53:22Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Not surprising for a sexist. The fact that you support Clinton is proof that she should lose. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/159 "2016-09-26T13:56:35Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > If I’m not mistaken, the rest of the chain of command such as the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are not obligated to blindly obey an order by the Commander-In-Chief to launch nuclear weapons. I just saw something this weekend that stated that the Secretary of Defense by law must approve the President’s order to launch nuclear weapons. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699/160 "2016-09-27T13:40:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In my view, however, Politifact applies two different standards, each defensible on their own but clearly not harmonious with each other. And the choice of which standard to apply reliably correlates to the political leaning assisted by the finding. I’d be curious to see your statistics on this; I have to admit I’ve relied on Politifact before, so if there’s some provable bias at work I’d like to know what it is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-yourselves/766699.md?page=9)