• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Trump Supporters Believe a Big Liar

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
He lies 4x more than Hillary, but yet his Redneck Deplorables believe every word he says while they call Hillary the liar. I suspect the reason for this is that the facts which subvert the crap that he says are over their heads.

Trump's bullsh*t: Why his supporters don't care that he's lying - Oct. 17, 2016

Frankfurt emphasizes that people bull**** when they speak about topics that they are not well-versed in or when the facts don't line up with the overall message. Trump has been upfront about his outsider status and his lack of debate prep and knowledge on government policy. The fact that he responds to complex topics with bull**** is perhaps not surprising.

This argument maps nicely onto a recent piece in The Atlantic about Trump and his supporters versus the media: The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.
Click to expand...

They don't really understand what he says. They just like how he says it. No wonder so many people consider Trump supporters to be complete idiots.
 
calamity said:
He lies 4x more than Hillary, but yet his Redneck Deplorables believe every word he says while they call Hillary the liar. I suspect the reason for this is that the facts which subvert the crap that he says are over their heads.

Trump's bullsh*t: Why his supporters don't care that he's lying - Oct. 17, 2016



They don't really understand what he says. They just like how he says it. No wonder so many people consider Trump supporters to be complete idiots.
Click to expand...

Trump is basically that drunk in the family that says whatever they want to. Funny at first, but no one would trust that person to watch their lawn.
 
Praxas said:
Trump is basically that drunk in the family that says whatever they want to. Funny at first, but no one would trust that person to watch their lawn.
Click to expand...

Good point. He reminds me of what used to pass for holiday dinner conversation before everyone had a smartphone to fact check Uncle Joe's nutty assertions on the spot.
 
Wow. In the first two paragraphs alond:

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are seen as equally trustworthy by the public, and yet Trump makes false statements almost four times as often than Clinton.
How is this possible?
I study deception and trust and am frequently asked this question, given that fact checkers rate Trump's statements as entirely false 52% of the time compared to Clinton's 12%.
Click to expand...

While the first bolded statement is not false, it is misleading, because it's far more accurate to say they're both seen as equally UNtrustworthy. It's like saying that two glasses with a sliver of water at the bottom are "equally full." He appears to want to give the impression that Trump is considered "trustworthy."

Second, "fact checkers" are in no way scientific or reliable, and aggregates of what they find -- statistics based on their results -- are even less so. "Fact-checkers" are accountable to no one, operate under no standards of conduct, "fact-check" only what they want to, and declare themselves the final arbiters as to their own accuracy.

This guy is a Stanford professor. He understands these things. Therefore, he is being intentionally dishonest and manipulative right out of the gate.

Why do people believe the candidate they support even when they lie? Because they want to. It's not like Hillary doesn't have legions of supporters who do the exact same thing, like Bill before her.
 
Harshaw said:
Wow. In the first two paragraphs alond:



While the first bolded statement is not false, it is misleading, because it's far more accurate to say they're both seen as equally UNtrustworthy. It's like saying that two glasses with a sliver of water at the bottom are "equally full." He appears to want to give the impression that Trump is considered "trustworthy."

Second, "fact checkers" are in no way scientific or reliable, and aggregates of what they find -- statistics based on their results -- are even less so. "Fact-checkers" are accountable to no one, operate under no standards of conduct, "fact-check" only what they want to, and declare themselves the final arbiters as to their own accuracy.

This guy is a Stanford professor. He understands these things. Therefore, he is being intentionally dishonest and manipulative right out of the gate.

Why do people believe the candidate they support even when they lie? Because they want to. It's not like Hillary doesn't have legions of supporters who do the exact same thing, like Bill before her.
Click to expand...

So please lay out for us the fact-checking that is wrong specifically. We keep getting told not to trust the fact-checkers, but have yet to see anyone actually dispute what they say.
 
Praxas said:
So please lay out for us the fact-checking that is wrong specifically. We keep getting told not to trust the fact-checkers, but have yet to see anyone actually dispute what they say.
Click to expand...

Their methodology is unreliable on its face.

Do they evaluate each and every statement made by both parties?

No, they do not.

Do they evaluate an equal and scientifically-consistent sample of the statements by both parties?

No, they do not.

They evaluate only what they choose to, with no consistent methodology for selection.

There's nothing scientific or academically-sound about it.
 
Harshaw said:
Their methodology is unreliable on its face.

Do they evaluate each and every statement made by both parties?

No, they do not.

Do they evaluate an equal and scientifically-consistent sample of the statements by both parties?

No, they do not.

They evaluate only what they choose to, with no consistent methodology for selection.

There's nothing scientific or academically-sound about it.
Click to expand...

You said specifically that the ACTUAL fact-checking couldn't be trusted. I've asked for examples time and time again and folks like yourself dodge it without providing actual proof.
 
countryboy said:
Sooooo.....you admit Hillary is a big fat liar. I think you just answered your own question. ;)
Click to expand...

At least she released her tax returns.
 
Praxas said:
You said specifically that the ACTUAL fact-checking couldn't be trusted.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that, "specifically" and "ACTUALly"?
 
Harshaw said:
Where did I say that, "specifically" and "ACTUALly"?
Click to expand...


here is what you said:

"Fact-checkers" are accountable to no one, operate under no standards of conduct, "fact-check" only what they want to, and declare themselves the final arbiters as to their own accuracy.
Click to expand...

You are insinuating that their fact-checking is inaccurate. So, you agree the actual fact-checking is correct then right? If not, please list the facts that are in question. Come on man commit to something, enough with this dodging and weaving.
 






Look...no one is singing Trumps praises...but to claim HRC is 'more honest'...thats just patently dishonest. You are eating **** brownies, KNOWING they are **** brownies, and trying to sell just how yummy your **** brownie is.
 
Praxas said:
here is what you said:



You are insinuating that their fact-checking is inaccurate.
Click to expand...

No, you simply misunderstand why someone declaring themselves final arbiters of their own accuracy is unscientific and inherently unreliable, and any Stanford professor who specializes in truth and/or deceit would know that.

So, you agree the actual fact-checking is correct then right?
Click to expand...

No, I asserted nothing of the sort either way. It doesn't even matter; the methodology is inherently deeply-flawed and unreliable. And that is so even IF all of their fact-checking is 100% correct.

If not, please list the facts that are in question. Come on man commit to something, enough with this dodging and weaving.
Click to expand...

:roll: You not understanding what I said doesn't make it "dodging and weaving." It just means this conversation is over your head.
 
calamity said:
He lies 4x more than Hillary, but yet his Redneck Deplorables believe every word he says while they call Hillary the liar. I suspect the reason for this is that the facts which subvert the crap that he says are over their heads.

Trump's bullsh*t: Why his supporters don't care that he's lying - Oct. 17, 2016

They don't really understand what he says. They just like how he says it. No wonder so many people consider Trump supporters to be complete idiots.
Click to expand...

He probably just needs a "dream team" to help with his public policy goals.
 
VanceMack said:

...

Look...no one is singing Trumps praises...but to claim HRC is 'more honest'...thats just patently dishonest. You are eating **** brownies, KNOWING they are **** brownies, and trying to sell just how yummy your **** brownie is.
Click to expand...


Oh, you want to use Barack as a source? OK.

 
calamity said:
Oh, you want to use Barack as a source? OK.

Click to expand...
You may have missed it. No one is championing Trump...merely pointing out how stupid you look as a cheerleader for HRC.

Besides...Obama has shown his true colors by calling Hillary a liar in one breathe and then pimping for her 8 years later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom