1065
Jimmy Kimmel has a suggestion.
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
1065 points (98.9% liked)
Political Memes
5617 readers
1619 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Good. Trump needs a lot more than the MAGA cult to win an election (I wish I didn't have to keep saying this). If we can convince them to start spreading the rumor about bigfoot in Ohio to the point that Vance and/or Trump starts talking about it, plenty of people leaning right will say, "this dude is nuts. No way am I voting for him." They might not vote for Harris, but they also might not vote at all.
But he doesn't in order to seize power undemocratically, which is his real game plan here. Remember, the NAZIs never had more than 30-something percent support in 1930s Germany, either.
Okay, but that's a totally different issue from what we're discussing.
Also, he doesn't have the concentration of people to do it. January 6th happened because he was able to concentrate people in D.C. and was president at the time.
No it's not....if you think for a second that's not the end game you're going to be very disappointed when they steal the election
Whether or not it is the end game, that is a different issue from what I am discussing.
We're YOU in DC on January 6th? Cause I was for work and I've seen it with my own eyes
That is also not what I am discussing. I understand that you want to change the subject, but that does not work with me.
Ideology for many of the conservative mindset is more important that principles. The Democratic leaning voters are the ones that can be fickle enough to stay home but the Republicans would still vote
Plenty of prominent Republicans are already turning against him.
The problem with all these "prominent" Republicans is I think they're all liars. I think every last one will still vote for him come election day.
If he wins that will end the careers of those coming out against him. There is no reason for them to do so if they are going to vote for him.
The only one saying it seemed to be people whose careers pretty much are over.
Given that Trump throws you out when you stop kissing his ass for even a second...
(X) Doubt
I don't hear any of that outside the prominent ones. The smaller local ones are dead set on voting for Trump in my neck of the woods. But we have the nutters like Matt Shea constantly siring the pot and North Idaho seems like a powder keg waiting to go off. I wouldn't be surprised if someone doesn't try another Ruby Ridge type standoff in the next 5 years.
Okay? You were claiming all Republicans will still vote for him. That's demonstrably not true. If big name Republicans aren't going to vote for him, why are you assuming all other Republicans will?
If I may project a little, I think the commenter is pointing to language that’s been cropping up essentially calling big name republicans traitors for endorsing Kamala. While you’re more than allowed to interpret what they said literally, I read it has intentionally a bit hyperbolic to make the point that a huge portion of the Republican Party will literally blindly follow him, even if the party leaders are starting to flake.
Just remember, rewording this statement:
To the version that would exemplify your interpretation:
Still creates an equally bold, and hyperbolic claim. Sometimes people use words like “all” and don’t really mean every last person. I blame the English language, not the people taking words literally, for misunderstandings like this.
Just remember, especially with politics, people often hype up language a bit, it makes statements carry more oomph, and can help keep supporters excited for whatever movement they are supporting.
Because I talk to Republicans, like with my mouth and listen with my ears. I see the roadside Trump support. I see people hanging banners on freeway overpasses. I'm just being realistic because I don't think conservative voters really care about what the Republican Elites are doing if those people aren't MAGA morons.
That is completely anecdotal.
That is a weak perspective.
Let me share something with you https://wikipedia.org/wiki/All_politics_is_local
Let me share something with you in return: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/writing-integrity/202011/the-plural-anecdote-is-misinformation
Did you even read that? What part aside from the use of your keywords do you want me to take from this?
All of it.
This part, for example
You are falling victim to that very thing.
You clearly don't understand what you're trying to say. It's a problem with this style of communication. Your putting to much value on your idea of what anecdotal evidence is. I'm not making presumptions about anything beyond my personal experiences. There's no facts I can use outside of voting records and the words people use and the actions they take. You can call it antidotal evidence but that's a poor direction because it's like everything is anecdotal if someone wants to be argumentive. Everything is anecdotal at some point https://listen-hard.com/psychological-research-and-methodology/anecdotal-evidence-psychology/
I live in a conservative part of Washington, surrounded by even more conservative communities on the other side of the state boarder with Idaho. My city is an island of moderate voting but leaning right. It's not very hard to get a sense of what the local politics are.
Do you know what that is like?
Let me give you an example. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Shea
Matt Shea was a local government official. He's made world news doing questionable shit. He's made a religious manifesto. He is a local conservative leader where I live. He was on stage with the previous mayor of Spokane. The election results are clearly factual. That mayor didn't lose in a landslide. Matt Shea was rejected by the Republican Elites but I think his endorsement of Trump has a stronger appeal to the Republicans in Eastern Washington than Dick Cheney.
This is reality.
It's hard to NOT see all the parts and make a conclusion that local conservative voters don't care what the National Republican Party thinks.
Psychology isn't a good science especially if you're trying to apply it to politics.
I live in Indiana. I also don't see all the Trump signs I saw in 2020. It's not even close.
Does my anecdotal evidence trump yours?
That you even said
Shows how little you understand the concept.
So apparently the answer is no. My experience in rural Indiana does not matter because of your experience in rural Washington.
Indeed, at this point I'm expecting Trump to lose hard simply because he only has the MAGA cult and a few "Vote Red or we're all dead" types