This is so true. What’s perhaps even more evil than the mainstream media intentionally misleading their audience with one-sided coverage, is the consequence that has of empowering their viewership to parrot the obvious contempt the mainstream media has for a growing majority of the population: Trump sympathizers. The mainstream media laughs at and others these subset of the population, so their viewers do to! How are we ever supposed to understand each others’ values and grievances in this country if this keeps up?
I agree. I was talking to some folks who were afraid evangelical Trump supporters would take over the military and despotize Trump. Aside from a complete ignorance about how our military or coups work these were clearly people who had NO idea what evangelicals were like or what they believed.
It would be as if I read that Muslims support the concept of Sharia law (true) and Sharia law supports a Muslim theocracy (true) and Iran is a Muslim Theocracy (true)... so I decided that Muslims in Dearborn were potential fifth columnists in a war with Iran! And then read some articles about ISIS recruiting and protests and decided that these people were a threat. It's stringing loose and poorly understood facts together into an alarming story... when you could just talk to the folks. That's always my advice. Don't like Trump supporters? Talk to them. Harris supporters? Same thing. people mostly want the same things. It's just that half of them are relentlessly and implicitly demonized by our media apparatus.
Some people are finding it hard to decide whether Trump is a bizarre, clownish cartoon-figure of a Mafia Boss whose threats against immigrants, journalists, Democrats, people who don't agree with him, etc. are merely bluster for the campaign rally crowds, or are a preview of his actual plans, should he be elected.
The position of all anti-Trumpers, in my view, is a basic incredulity over WHY ANYONE CONSIDERS HIM FIT FOR OFFICE. IF you take his bizarre utterances seriously and literally you are buying into a dark, deeply authoritarian (some would say 'fascist') and profoundly anti-democratic prescription for a new form of American governance.
One the other hand, if you believe him to be a clown, but you kinda-sorta like his message about immigration, taxation, etc., why would you consider HIM for office over some other, saner Republican?
All this finger-wagging at anti-Trumpers in general and journalists in particular is frankly very stupid. It is perfectly clear from his term in office that DJT is unsuited to be our President (and I am not going to re-litigate that here). Arguing about him often turns into a shouting match between his True believers and most of the rest of the world. Discussion therefore usually does nothing to promote national unity, civility or common understanding -- in fact, just the opposite.
The fact that the vast majority of knowledgeable, experienced, professional journalists, academics and other members of the commentariat write negatively about Trump should come as no surprise, for Trump disdains anyone who doesn't lavish praise on him. He is a malignant narcissist, and whines like a baby when he cannot get his way. (Plus, he is a liar, braggart, nincompoop - sigh - need I explain further? I think not.)
The Republican Party -- or let's just say the whole US two-party system -- has not given conservative voters much choice in this election. Third parties have been an amusing distraction for most of our history. I do feel you have been left out in the cold by the binary nature of the choices left to you. But that's life. Liz and Dick Cheney, amongst other prominent conservative Republicans have become very public backers of Harris -- and why is that, do you suppose? I think the truth is summed up very simply by what they themselves say: they chose country over party, because they feel Trump would be bad for both.
"It is perfectly clear from his term in office that DJT is unsuited to be our President (and I am not going to re-litigate that here." Good! That is your opinion, but ONLY your opinion. You have one, like every other citizen. Just don't mistake your opinion for objective reality. That is the mistake I see many educated people making: "He's SO bad! It's crazy! How could anyone vote for him??!"
To such people I always say the same thing: go ask them. I'm not a Trump fan, but I've been disturbed by a tendency of many never-Trumpers to assign dark or anti-democratic valences to a group of people where I see none (or very little). One of two things is probably going on: either these people (never Trumpers) have MORE access or a better (more accurate) interpretation of the Trump camp's rhetoric than I do. I find that unlikely because they usually only consume Trump speeches or supporters' content in small doses, and they filter everything through their VERY strong bias.
The other possibility is that these critics are BEGINNING with a strong, emotionally resonant axiom: TRUMP IS UNFIT FOR OFFICE. They then run everything through and by that interpretation. If it fits (or can be made to fit) it stays, if not it's discarded.
I'll give you an example: never Trumpers often use Trump's crimes and lies and sexual misdeeds as disqualifying factors. If these were the origin of their feelings then they would feel similarly to other presidents who have committed similar acts (GW Bush, Clinton, Obama). But they don't. It's not that they dislike these others figures but dislike Trump far more. They're using an entirely different heuristic for Trump, wherein Trump's lies or sexual improprieties or crimes against humanity are assumed to be disqualifying, whereas the same acts (or similar acts) by others are not. This is classic confirmation bias. The assumption is the essential part... the rest of the evidence and data is arranged to fit it, and if new evidence appears it will be similarly arranged. The assumption never changes because it can't. It's simply too important.
I'm happy you don't want to litigate Trump's fitness for office. That's not my intention either. I will give you the same advice I give everyone who says things about Trump's dark and authoritarian leanings: talk to some Trump voters. See if you're correct. I'm assuming you haven't already done that of course, but if you have I would love to see the outcome. I would be very grateful if you would send me some transcripts of respectful, constructive dialogues you've had with Trump supporters (like we're having right now). My purpose is not to criticize or bolster Trump. It's to explore the way people form opinions and how confirmation and selection and and in-group biases shape them. If you're opinions about Trump voters really originate from your discussions with them I'm fascinated. If not it's never too late to begin. I suspect that the victory of the next generation of political organizing will tend towards whichever side is better at cordially engaging folks who disagree with them. In this presidential contest, judging by that factor alone, the Trump voters have won (to my observation)-HANDILY.
Hey, James, thanks for your thoughtful reply. Of course it is true, I am of the opinion that Trump is unfit for office, but I would point out that it is not just MY opinion, it is one shared by many prominent people with first hand experience of working for the man.
I am a Liberal, which as it implies means I am generally open-minded and tolerant of other political viewpoints. I am not stridently anti-conservative, but I am stridently anti-Trump (who is NOT a conservativer, but a a radical — and a degenerate one to boot, imho).
The reason for my dislike of the man is not, for the most part, based on policy. It is WHO he is, HOW he acts, and WHAT he has done or will do.
He is a man of poor character and limited knowledge or understanding of the world.
He thinks like a mob boss.
Besides his fanatical insistence that everything he touches turns to gold (like sad, old King Midas who turned his daughter into cold metal), his strong point is knowing how to manipulate people and of course, how to be a showman on TV. He really does get TV and ratings.
Regarding confirmation bias…I hardly feel the need for more confirmation of my opinion of the man, as I’ve had plenty over the past 20 years.
I can’t cite conversations with Trump supporters because they are scarce on the ground in my area. I have a cousin who voted for him — we get along well, perhaps because he and I favor strong national defense polciies in concert with our allies (NATO, AUKUS, Japan/So. Korea, etc.). Plus, we are cousins and blood is thicker than politics. To be honest, I haven’t had much chance to talk politics with him this campaign season.
There is only one person of my acquaintance who is a big Trump supporter (money, votes and a lot of opinionated commentary). He is a conservative Libertarian who is quite accomplished in his field, made some good money and enjoys hob-nobbing with wealthy people. Of course, in his income bracket he has financial reasons to lie Trump (lower taxes for wealthy folks), and he is generally careful to support his arguments with facts, but he also seems to agree at least partially with Trump’s dark view of the state of our nation. We talk out our differences in good humor.
I apologize for having bored you with a wheelbarrow-load of opinion, but it’s late, and it looks like Trump is likely to win the election. God bless the USA - we’ll need it.
I've had some FASCINATING exchanges with believers all over the map this election season. The viscerally anti-Trump folks often strike me as being in the grips of a powerful confirmation bias, which is coloring everything they see or hear in ways that, for most others, it's not. Obviously we ALL have confirmation bias in certain ways... but when it's too strong or debilitating it makes you less persuasive to others. To such people I generally ask" 'if the things you're saying are so self-evidently valid why can't you convince any who doesn't share you bias? Why do millions of independents and former Democrats and nonwhite voters apparently disagree?" It's an ironic feature of human psychology: the things we're SO SURE are correct (and morally right!) are often just articles of faith, held for reasons which have more to do with emotion or experience or affiliation than logic. When we try to explain them to others they simply can't understand our views. That's because they don't share our emotional prejudice. The words and ideas themselves as we express them aren't sufficient to carry our meaning. That is a very clear sign that you're in the grips of confirmation bias and, until you can understand the world as others do, you won't convince anyone. This elections seems (partly) like that dynamic-repeated 30 million times.
Super well said. Especially on today of all days, when everyone is coming out of the woodwork to insist their political views are “obviously right”, often without actually engaging meaningfully with the substance of the content they choose to comment under!
OK, sure, we got two bad choices for president. One is a Mafia Boss (not a fascist, though Mussolini was both), the other seems vapid, and I don't know much about her besides that. The only thing I disagreed with you is that you think Trump is genuine. He lies alot and says things that he knows will piss off the politically correct. Is that genuine, or impish? As far as policy, I don't know if there is that much difference in policy. Presidents don't have much influence over inflation. Neither is going to do anything about rebuilding communities or Climate Change.
This is so true. What’s perhaps even more evil than the mainstream media intentionally misleading their audience with one-sided coverage, is the consequence that has of empowering their viewership to parrot the obvious contempt the mainstream media has for a growing majority of the population: Trump sympathizers. The mainstream media laughs at and others these subset of the population, so their viewers do to! How are we ever supposed to understand each others’ values and grievances in this country if this keeps up?
I agree. I was talking to some folks who were afraid evangelical Trump supporters would take over the military and despotize Trump. Aside from a complete ignorance about how our military or coups work these were clearly people who had NO idea what evangelicals were like or what they believed.
It would be as if I read that Muslims support the concept of Sharia law (true) and Sharia law supports a Muslim theocracy (true) and Iran is a Muslim Theocracy (true)... so I decided that Muslims in Dearborn were potential fifth columnists in a war with Iran! And then read some articles about ISIS recruiting and protests and decided that these people were a threat. It's stringing loose and poorly understood facts together into an alarming story... when you could just talk to the folks. That's always my advice. Don't like Trump supporters? Talk to them. Harris supporters? Same thing. people mostly want the same things. It's just that half of them are relentlessly and implicitly demonized by our media apparatus.
I agree. This is their biggest offense.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-the-bigoted-republican
Some people are finding it hard to decide whether Trump is a bizarre, clownish cartoon-figure of a Mafia Boss whose threats against immigrants, journalists, Democrats, people who don't agree with him, etc. are merely bluster for the campaign rally crowds, or are a preview of his actual plans, should he be elected.
The position of all anti-Trumpers, in my view, is a basic incredulity over WHY ANYONE CONSIDERS HIM FIT FOR OFFICE. IF you take his bizarre utterances seriously and literally you are buying into a dark, deeply authoritarian (some would say 'fascist') and profoundly anti-democratic prescription for a new form of American governance.
One the other hand, if you believe him to be a clown, but you kinda-sorta like his message about immigration, taxation, etc., why would you consider HIM for office over some other, saner Republican?
All this finger-wagging at anti-Trumpers in general and journalists in particular is frankly very stupid. It is perfectly clear from his term in office that DJT is unsuited to be our President (and I am not going to re-litigate that here). Arguing about him often turns into a shouting match between his True believers and most of the rest of the world. Discussion therefore usually does nothing to promote national unity, civility or common understanding -- in fact, just the opposite.
The fact that the vast majority of knowledgeable, experienced, professional journalists, academics and other members of the commentariat write negatively about Trump should come as no surprise, for Trump disdains anyone who doesn't lavish praise on him. He is a malignant narcissist, and whines like a baby when he cannot get his way. (Plus, he is a liar, braggart, nincompoop - sigh - need I explain further? I think not.)
The Republican Party -- or let's just say the whole US two-party system -- has not given conservative voters much choice in this election. Third parties have been an amusing distraction for most of our history. I do feel you have been left out in the cold by the binary nature of the choices left to you. But that's life. Liz and Dick Cheney, amongst other prominent conservative Republicans have become very public backers of Harris -- and why is that, do you suppose? I think the truth is summed up very simply by what they themselves say: they chose country over party, because they feel Trump would be bad for both.
"It is perfectly clear from his term in office that DJT is unsuited to be our President (and I am not going to re-litigate that here." Good! That is your opinion, but ONLY your opinion. You have one, like every other citizen. Just don't mistake your opinion for objective reality. That is the mistake I see many educated people making: "He's SO bad! It's crazy! How could anyone vote for him??!"
To such people I always say the same thing: go ask them. I'm not a Trump fan, but I've been disturbed by a tendency of many never-Trumpers to assign dark or anti-democratic valences to a group of people where I see none (or very little). One of two things is probably going on: either these people (never Trumpers) have MORE access or a better (more accurate) interpretation of the Trump camp's rhetoric than I do. I find that unlikely because they usually only consume Trump speeches or supporters' content in small doses, and they filter everything through their VERY strong bias.
The other possibility is that these critics are BEGINNING with a strong, emotionally resonant axiom: TRUMP IS UNFIT FOR OFFICE. They then run everything through and by that interpretation. If it fits (or can be made to fit) it stays, if not it's discarded.
I'll give you an example: never Trumpers often use Trump's crimes and lies and sexual misdeeds as disqualifying factors. If these were the origin of their feelings then they would feel similarly to other presidents who have committed similar acts (GW Bush, Clinton, Obama). But they don't. It's not that they dislike these others figures but dislike Trump far more. They're using an entirely different heuristic for Trump, wherein Trump's lies or sexual improprieties or crimes against humanity are assumed to be disqualifying, whereas the same acts (or similar acts) by others are not. This is classic confirmation bias. The assumption is the essential part... the rest of the evidence and data is arranged to fit it, and if new evidence appears it will be similarly arranged. The assumption never changes because it can't. It's simply too important.
I'm happy you don't want to litigate Trump's fitness for office. That's not my intention either. I will give you the same advice I give everyone who says things about Trump's dark and authoritarian leanings: talk to some Trump voters. See if you're correct. I'm assuming you haven't already done that of course, but if you have I would love to see the outcome. I would be very grateful if you would send me some transcripts of respectful, constructive dialogues you've had with Trump supporters (like we're having right now). My purpose is not to criticize or bolster Trump. It's to explore the way people form opinions and how confirmation and selection and and in-group biases shape them. If you're opinions about Trump voters really originate from your discussions with them I'm fascinated. If not it's never too late to begin. I suspect that the victory of the next generation of political organizing will tend towards whichever side is better at cordially engaging folks who disagree with them. In this presidential contest, judging by that factor alone, the Trump voters have won (to my observation)-HANDILY.
Hey, James, thanks for your thoughtful reply. Of course it is true, I am of the opinion that Trump is unfit for office, but I would point out that it is not just MY opinion, it is one shared by many prominent people with first hand experience of working for the man.
I am a Liberal, which as it implies means I am generally open-minded and tolerant of other political viewpoints. I am not stridently anti-conservative, but I am stridently anti-Trump (who is NOT a conservativer, but a a radical — and a degenerate one to boot, imho).
The reason for my dislike of the man is not, for the most part, based on policy. It is WHO he is, HOW he acts, and WHAT he has done or will do.
He is a man of poor character and limited knowledge or understanding of the world.
He thinks like a mob boss.
Besides his fanatical insistence that everything he touches turns to gold (like sad, old King Midas who turned his daughter into cold metal), his strong point is knowing how to manipulate people and of course, how to be a showman on TV. He really does get TV and ratings.
Regarding confirmation bias…I hardly feel the need for more confirmation of my opinion of the man, as I’ve had plenty over the past 20 years.
I can’t cite conversations with Trump supporters because they are scarce on the ground in my area. I have a cousin who voted for him — we get along well, perhaps because he and I favor strong national defense polciies in concert with our allies (NATO, AUKUS, Japan/So. Korea, etc.). Plus, we are cousins and blood is thicker than politics. To be honest, I haven’t had much chance to talk politics with him this campaign season.
There is only one person of my acquaintance who is a big Trump supporter (money, votes and a lot of opinionated commentary). He is a conservative Libertarian who is quite accomplished in his field, made some good money and enjoys hob-nobbing with wealthy people. Of course, in his income bracket he has financial reasons to lie Trump (lower taxes for wealthy folks), and he is generally careful to support his arguments with facts, but he also seems to agree at least partially with Trump’s dark view of the state of our nation. We talk out our differences in good humor.
I apologize for having bored you with a wheelbarrow-load of opinion, but it’s late, and it looks like Trump is likely to win the election. God bless the USA - we’ll need it.
https://open.substack.com/pub/authenticintelligencepublication/p/heres-why-i-cant-vote-for-kamala?r=4dg1kb&utm_medium=ios
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14040991/amp/joe-rogan-endorsement-2024-president-election.html
https://substack.com/@terrencegideon/note/c-75618198?r=4dg1kb&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
https://substack.com/@taxestechcpa/note/c-75549809?r=4dg1kb&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
I've had some FASCINATING exchanges with believers all over the map this election season. The viscerally anti-Trump folks often strike me as being in the grips of a powerful confirmation bias, which is coloring everything they see or hear in ways that, for most others, it's not. Obviously we ALL have confirmation bias in certain ways... but when it's too strong or debilitating it makes you less persuasive to others. To such people I generally ask" 'if the things you're saying are so self-evidently valid why can't you convince any who doesn't share you bias? Why do millions of independents and former Democrats and nonwhite voters apparently disagree?" It's an ironic feature of human psychology: the things we're SO SURE are correct (and morally right!) are often just articles of faith, held for reasons which have more to do with emotion or experience or affiliation than logic. When we try to explain them to others they simply can't understand our views. That's because they don't share our emotional prejudice. The words and ideas themselves as we express them aren't sufficient to carry our meaning. That is a very clear sign that you're in the grips of confirmation bias and, until you can understand the world as others do, you won't convince anyone. This elections seems (partly) like that dynamic-repeated 30 million times.
Super well said. Especially on today of all days, when everyone is coming out of the woodwork to insist their political views are “obviously right”, often without actually engaging meaningfully with the substance of the content they choose to comment under!
yawn.
OK, sure, we got two bad choices for president. One is a Mafia Boss (not a fascist, though Mussolini was both), the other seems vapid, and I don't know much about her besides that. The only thing I disagreed with you is that you think Trump is genuine. He lies alot and says things that he knows will piss off the politically correct. Is that genuine, or impish? As far as policy, I don't know if there is that much difference in policy. Presidents don't have much influence over inflation. Neither is going to do anything about rebuilding communities or Climate Change.
https://iuval.substack.com/p/lipstick-on-a-pig
Ye gods your commentary is insufferable
Thanks for your support!