I see what you’re saying, but I’m not convinced. I don’t loathe Trump because he might achieve his “agenda.” In fact, I doubt he cares one whit about enacting any of the stuff he’s pandering about. But, he would still be terrible. He has a 100% chance of being a “national disgrace,” to use General Powell’s term.
I’m sorry, but what would you call those two posts-love letters? They were direct hyperbolic attacks on a majority of posters on this board that went way beyond whether they were voting for Trump or not.
I know. There’s never actually thoughtful posts and discussions coming from us liberal Dopers – just mindless attacks and accusations. It’s not like we ever sincerely inquire about why those who disagree think the way they do, and it’s not like there are ever thoughtful and productive conversations on the Dope about philosophical and political issues.
You always get excited when posters ignore your “rules” for the threads you start, so again here is my OP:"Who, here is voting for Trump?
Even **adaher **and iirc **Bricker **aren’t voting for him. So, who is, and why?
*Please do not attack the posters who admit this, guys."
*
Serious and sincere question: do you think he’ll be a better president and create jobs and improve the economy and stop illegal immigration? Or do you think he’ll be bad but just not as bad as people say and not as bad as Hillary would be? Like if he’s elected it will be like Mad Max but if she’s elected it will be Mad Max Fury Road?
And if you do think that he’ll create jobs, improve the economy, and stop illegal immigration, why leads you to think that? Anyone can say that they will do X, Y, and Z, and many politicians do, but what makes you think he’ll actually be able to do these things? What makes you think he’s not like so many politicians who have come before and is just saying what his supporters like to hear?
I’m sincerely not trying to set this up to attack or insult you, I honestly would like to know.
You are one of a small subset of liberal posters on this site that isn’t full of condescension, double standards, and hostility. You are actually pleasant to engage with even when in disagreement.
That’s very kind of you. I recognize that I might be biased, but I think there are plenty of such liberal posters on the board (as well as conservative posters). Is it possible that sometimes more strident disagreement seems to you to be “condescension”, or “hostility”, when it might just be very passionate disagreement?
Why did President Obama make the country “divided”? Because the Republicans, bowing to their racist base, decided to oppose his every move. First, to make him a one-term President. Then to besmirch his reputation. They failed. But they succeeded in raising the spectre of racism & xenophobia–nominating it, in fact. (Alas, the GOP was once The Party of Lincoln.)
Alas. I’m sure you’ll object that my post is not within the parameters of the OP. But, if we really limited this thread to Dopers admitting they will vote for Trump, we’d have a very short thread.
Disagreement based on legitimate arguments is perfectly fine. Calling opponents racist, sexist, bigoted, constructing straw man arguments, halo and horn fallacies, deliberately parsing statements inaccurately, questions in the style of “do you still beat your wife”, are not honest debate tactics. Obviously they get a pass on this forum due to the overwhelming partisan disparity but these and condescension and hostility are not imagined.
If political ideology had the same reflexive protections religious ideology has this would clearly be a case of conservaphobic bigotry. Replace Republican, conservative, or libertarian with Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu, or whatever and see how these strident disagreements read.
Like I said, you carry yourself well. But I’m a bit surprised you don’t see ad hominem attacks and such as hostile. That’s not debating a topic. That’s attacking a person in order to discredit any thing that that person says. Paraphrasing an early ad hominem attack “you are voting for Trump therefore all your opinions are worthless.” is one such example. Is that strident disagreement or is that condescension?
I think we’re allowed a lot more than that, unless you’ve recently become a moderator and I missed the announcement. You don’t get to control your thread.
We are abashed, ashamed. If it didn’t emanate from such a shining example of civility and reason, it might be suspicious. You are a beacon to us all!
But don’t squander your gifts. Crystal pure piety such as yours should be applied in homeopathic dosages, a very little bit at very long intervals. Don’t waste it all on us, when there are so many in need!
I do see ad hominem attacks as hostile, I’m just saying that perhaps you’re misreading some disagreements as ad hominem. Or perhaps not. I’m sure my eyes skip over some ad hominem attacks because they just don’t interest me.