- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 10,257
- Reaction score
- 4,161
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
In the same way it is best not to assign genius when there are more grounded explanations for success. I wouldn't assign to stupid that which can be explained by temperamental difference.
Everything you assigned to "trumpkins" although no doubt true in same cases can apply equally in other areas of politics to other sets of people regarding other politicians and policies. Only about 18% of actual Americans voted for Trump. Assuming only a 32% core base brings that down to 6%. Even in that small group the statical probability that they would signifgantly fall bellow the norm on intelligence or gullibility <1%. Chances are they are about average. Chances are your interest in politics puts you above average in intelligence especially in politcal knowledgeability though that also puts you at a higher then average probability of being swept up in certian political social manipulations[higher than average gullibility]. Chances are you give a lot more credit to supporters of your political causes than they are due credit and less to those you disagree.
End of the day. It is best to assume disagreement in policy or support of politicans has less to do with people moral character, intelligence or gullibility and more to do with their different culture, priorities, personal interests and temperament. You know measures that actualy are predictive of political postion.
The rubric poll for this thread contains two intellectual foundation questions that provide a high level basis for the key inference I, in the narrative portion of my OP, made about Trumpkins. One of those questions I noted in the OP and the other I merely referred to but didn't replicate. Had those two questions not been part of the poll, I wouldn't have been able to, using the poll's responses, make the inference I did.
The poll doesn't contain information that would support the assertion that Dems and Indies are the nitwits and that Trumpkins/GOP-ers alone aren't; thus I proffered no inferences to that effect.
Red:
That is possible; however, even if that phenomenon be versimilitudinous, its being so alters not that Trumpkins be, in the main, ill-informed nitwits. The acumen of members of a given political party has no bearing on that of members of another.
Blue:
While I have a position on Trumpkins' moral character, it isn't one I've shared in this thread. Perhaps the scare-quoted "mofo" made you think I was remarking, in part, on Trumpkins' moral fiber. If so, that's my dictional mistake. Making a one-word remark on an entire class of folks' moral qualities isn't my way of depicting people.