Rachel Maddow: Poll Reveals Trump Voters Are in Alternate State of Reality

a reply to: omniEther

were this the mudpit, i'd have much more to say. but yes. i've seen her. i'd rather not have to again.

a reply to: interupt42

seriously , you talking about fake news and ignorant voters as to being the reason why Trump won and you think hillary is irrelevant in regards to the subject.

I think fake news and ignorance is part of the reason, as well as Hillary being a bad pick, but she has nothing to do with your comment about Trump's potential connections to Russia. Bringing-up Clinton's potential foreign connections is textbook deflection.

Sounds like to me that you are the one deflecting to the fact that your Right wing fake news argument is BS and that fake news was on equally on both sides.

So you admit the Right was subject to fake news. That's a start.

Heck she even took it one step further and had the Fake news call her for permission to print the stories.

Can you provide a link to a site created for the sole purpose of creating fake news to market to the Left, that does not report any factual news?

Perhaps your left elitist attitude is coming through by deflecting on what is on topic?

Elitist attitude? Pointing out that you are deflecting from your own point is indicative on an elitist attitude?

That's odd.

a reply to: introvert

but she has nothing to do with your comment about Trump's potential connections to Russia.

She absolutely does once you made your comment about Trump having russian ties. She also had very questionable ties to foreign nations which makes your argument irrelevant since they both did. Which was my point .

So you admit the Right was subject to fake news. That's a start.

I have said it from the start that BOTH Left and Right have fake news, it is you that is claiming that only the Right has fake news or more fake , lol.

Can you provide a link to a site created for the sole purpose of creating fake news to market to the Left, that does not report any factual news?

Better than that, goto wikileaks and look up actual email correspondence between the MSM and her campaign about asking for permissions to print articles, or giving her heads up about stories, or debate questions.

Elitist attitude? Pointing out that you are deflecting from your own point is indicative on an elitist attitude?

Yes since you appear to be under impression that you are a moderator and have taken the liberty to make Hillary off topic.


Blaming fake news for Hillary loss is a scapegoat and nothing more.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: omniEther

I wouldn't go so far as to call them "fake". But inaccurate would be, well, accurate.

When a poll conducted in a country of over 300 million only surveys 1000, or less, folks, inaccuracy is going to be rampant.

One person out of 300,000 isn't conducive to accuracy. Any accuracy is going to be strictly chance.

That's a more accurate ratio than that of our elected representatives pushing our views in Congress.

a reply to: interupt42

She absolutely does once you made your comment about Trump having russian ties. She also had very questionable ties to foreign nations which makes your argument irrelevant since they both did which was my point .

So if I mention Trump and his potential Russian ties, that means it's relevant to inject Clinton and her potential ties...even though she is not the topic and has nothing to do with Trump's connections?

Textbook deflection.

I have said that from the start its is you that is claiming that only the Right has fake news or more fake , lol.

You admit that the Right has fake news. That is all I needed.

Sure goto wikileaks and look up actual email correspondence between the MSM and her campaign about asking for permissions to print articles or giving her heads up about stories.

That is not what I asked. I asked for a link to a site that generates fake news for the Left.

a reply to: introvert

Textbook deflection.

Textbook deflection is how you are deflecting about what is on topic. Hillary is on topic because the OP is indicating that the reason she lost is because of fake news,

My argument is that is not true , she lost because of her trust by the American people was lower than Congress likeability .In addition she lost because she could match or outdo any scandal associated with Trump including having questionable ties with Foreign nations.

You admit that the Right has fake news. That is all I needed.

Ok,Glad you got what you needed.LOL

But what I said was BOTH the Right and the LEFT have fake news.

That is not what I asked. I asked for a link to a site that generates fake news for the Left.

CNN and msnbc.

I bet you some people wanted to slap the crap out of Hillary after she called so many Americans deplorables in all of her smuggy glory. It was beyond unwise because so many of us dug in our heals then. So, in view of this story I'd suggest that Rachel Maddow take a note from Hillary's playbook of ignorant mistakes and shut her trap, bide her time, and move on with life. Because spitting in the eye of the victors out of spite isn't smart.

Of course she could keep running her trap. The SJW folks can keep breaking windows and BLM can keep beating random white people. They can all keep on a keeping on because it is annihilating any doubt or sympathy of what these folks are truly about. And that thought sends a slowly spreading smile across my face because after they finish showing their ass the rest of us can get on with being human. Their soapbox will be permanently taken away and they can recede to the crevices of life.

Rachel who? And is she actually expecting reasonable people to believe a liberal poll? Sorry, but that ship sailed and liberal polls have proven themselves to be worthless...just like the $1.8 billion Hillary and DNC spent on a lost election.

She is still salty

In the end the left (voters) could see Hillary for what she was, and it affected her voter turnout (despite still having more votes than Trump). The right (voters) could not see Trump for what he is, or chose to ignore it, no matter the facts or evidence.

I know you all remember there wasn't a whole ton of people here that were fully behind Clinton and in denial about every accusation. The same cannot be said of Trump, both on ATS and at large (I'm talking about voters here).

originally posted by: okrian
In the end the left (voters) could see Hillary for what she was, and it affected her voter turnout (despite still having more votes than Trump). The right (voters) could not see Trump for what he is, or chose to ignore it, no matter the facts or evidence.

I know you all remember there wasn't a whole ton of people here that were fully behind Clinton and in denial about every accusation. The same cannot be said of Trump, both on ATS and at large (I'm talking about voters here).

No, the Trump voters saw what Hillary was and then it didn't matter what he was.

originally posted by: UKTruth
it didn't matter what he was.

Here we can agree.

a reply to: Aazadan

Agreed.

Though I have to ask, who's fault is that? We elect 'em, we should supervise 'em, too.

originally posted by: okrian
In the end the left (voters) could see Hillary for what she was, . . .

More like believed the lies and exaggerations.

Which supports the premise of the report from this polling company.

a reply to: solargeddon

It is disingenuous and intellectually lazy to stack the cards in your favor by using language that characterizes me as stupid. In an argument, one making claims has the responsibility of either sourcing or proving those claims. That's what argumentation basically is. It is not - as you said - me needing to "be led". (In point of fact, it is the opposite. I'd like to ascertain the strength of your claim by reviewing the sources on which it is founded.) We are really not straying far off-topic, since your claim strongly resembles that of the OP.

Furthermore, you don't seem to realize that we (partly) agree. You said:

"If Trump can restore true right vs. left politics, he would have achieved something."

That was the entire point of my analogy to the hemispheres of the neocortex: two "organs" of the same structure, which need each other and capitalize on their differences in order to survive, prosper, invent, and understand the world. (I realize that the left & right hemispheres are not considered organs unto themselves in the anatomical sense.)

I'll investigate your sources and be back to let you know what I find. I state now that I suspect I will easily find that your sources are merely propaganda. If I'm wrong, I'll eat crow.

Wow.
We really can not all get along, can we?

If you are interested, you might want to read this:
“The Righteous Mind” – Understanding Conservatives and Liberals
I found it interesting.
It explains why we all don't see things the same way.

The first element of Haidt’s “moral foundations theory” is that the vast majority of moral reasoning rests on six foundations:

Care/Harm
Fairness/Cheating
Liberty/Oppression
Loyalty/Betrayal
Authority/Subversion
Sanctity/Degradation
...
These foundations help us categorize people based on their most essential moral beliefs. Those who tend to see morality mostly through the prisms of Care/Harm and Fairness/Cheating are “liberal.” If your moral compass tends more toward Authority/Subversion and Sanctity/Degradation, you are “conservative.” Simple enough
...
But Haidt’s second major discovery is far more consequential: the concept of “the conservative advantage.” Based on painstaking cross-cultural social-psychological experimentation, Haidt establishes that the moral foundations of liberals and conservatives are not just different, they are dramatically unequal. The liberal moral matrix rests essentially entirely on the left-most foundations; the conservative moral foundation—though slanted to the right—rests upon all six.
...
This is a stunning finding with enormous implications. The first is that conservatives can relate to the moral thinking of liberals, but the converse is not true at all. Haidt, who is liberal himself, elegantly explains how and why conservatives will view liberals as merely misguided while liberals tend to view conservatives as incomprehensible, insane, immoral, etc.
...
Another implication is that liberal prescriptions tend to be incredibly single-minded as compared to those of conservatives.
...
Liberals seek to create justice and equity; whether doing so harms core institutions simply doesn’t enter into their moral reasoning. Conservatives, in contrast to their typical caricature, do care about justice and fairness, they merely cherish vital institutions relatively more. If there’s a conflict, conservatives will err toward protecting institutions.
...Sadly, “The Righteous Mind” proves irrefutably that trying to explain to liberals that their solutions might undermine vital institutions is fruitless. They cannot and will not relate, or even concede that such concerns fall into the realm of moral reasoning. The good news is that a coalition can be built among the rest of us who understand that destroying the hive to benefit the lone bee results inescapably in suffering for all.

The rest of the article is really interesting too.

So, we will never all agree. It's scientifically proven.
But, maybe we can at least respect each other, and not demean or belittle each other for having differing beliefs?
I think that we all want what is best for the country, we just disagree on what is best.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: okrian
In the end the left (voters) could see Hillary for what she was, . . .

More like believed the lies and exaggerations.

Which supports the premise of the report from this polling company.

I love when you make revealing comments like that, sorta like how you used to say Hillary is a shark swimming in the direction you want to go

originally posted by: seagull
Agreed.

Though I have to ask, who's fault is that? We elect 'em, we should supervise 'em, too.

It gets to be really complicated and off topic for this thread. But to sum up my views, I think it involves mutual supervision. The public should have every ability to make their wishes heard, but the public largely votes on emotion. Once you're in office your whole job is (or should) revolve around researching topics, speaking to experts, and making informed votes.

I think that all too often, the public elects politicians for their stances on issues, when the criteria we should base our vote on is the persons ability to make decisions. Even the best policy will fail if the decisions to implement it were made poorly.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: introvert

Textbook deflection.

Textbook deflection is how you are deflecting about what is on topic. Hillary is on topic because the OP is indicating that the reason she lost is because of fake news,

My argument is that is not true , she lost because of her trust by the American people was lower than Congress likeability .In addition she lost because she could match or outdo any scandal associated with Trump including having questionable ties with Foreign nations.

You admit that the Right has fake news. That is all I needed.

Ok,Glad you got what you needed.LOL

But what I said was BOTH the Right and the LEFT have fake news.

That is not what I asked. I asked for a link to a site that generates fake news for the Left.

CNN and msnbc.

I am the OP. I did not indicate that at all. hours later and people are still making up their own ideas on my OP.

a reply to: BlueAjah

You know what you can tell your 'scientific expert'. lol.