Trump voters incapable of acknowledging a fact even when it is staring them in the face

[Elixir]

The Republicans don't believe in disability.

Hyperbole much? Broad-brush much? You probably can't produce a single example of a Republican who doesn't believe in disability at all; and some believe in it more than others. Perhaps the idea you were trying to get across was "The average Republican has somewhat more stringent criteria than the average Democrat for considering a person disabled."?

As for the actual numbers:

As medical technology improves you get the ironic result that it increases the number of disabled. In the past many of those would have simply died.

And you think medical technology has improved so much just in the last eight years that this effect can account for more than a little bit of the rise in people on disability?

Also, look at the baby boomers--we still have a surge moving through the last years of working--the years they are most likely to end up disabled.

Okay, that's a valid point. We'd need statistics on the number of people on disability that's broken down by age group in order to determine whether it's the principle cause of the rise.

We also have fewer and fewer jobs for those with very minimal ability--some people have become disabled by the disappearance of any job they can do, not by their condition getting worse.

But that isn't an example of "can't work". That's an example of "nobody will hire them". When somebody doesn't have a job because nobody will hire him, normal people call that "unemployment".

Finally, we have some where the docs are bending the rules. The health issues are real but not actually completely disabling. The tough job market made it impossible for them to find work, though--companies rightly evaluated them as the riskier hire and with better choices passed them over. Now they have been out of it long enough they won't get hired anyway. They meet the spirit of the law but not the letter of it.

But the spirit of the law (and often it's not a doctor but a judge bending the rule) is to be compassionate, help out a guy who needs help, and get him on disability when that's what's financially best for him, never mind whether it's what Congress actually voted to do in a case like his. Which is a fine and kindly act. But the morality of bending the rules on a case-by-case basis doesn't change the fact that the guy can work; and statistics that are based on having statisticians politely go along with the fiction that the guy can't work are going to be incorrect statistics. This isn't about whether people ought to get to go on disability; this is about whether we should deceive ourselves about what's happening in our economy.

If one reason official unemployment statistics look as good as they do is that a lot of people aren't being counted as unemployed because they're on disability because doctors and judges were kind to them even though they wouldn't have been on disability in 2008, that means unemployment hasn't really improved as much as the official statistics claim. This remains the case whether you think those people belong on disability or not. If we assume they really can't work, and it's good and proper for them to be on disability and the 2016 unemployment figures are therefore correct, that implies that in 2008 the unemployment figures were wrong. There were a lot of people in 2008 who couldn't work and should have been counted as disabled, but were instead counted as unemployed.

(Personally, I think that in such borderline cases the government should be required to job hunt for them...

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Whether your artificial definitions are right isn't a fact staring anyone in the face; it's a matter of opinion.

Both terms have standard government definitions. Since it's government data those definitions should be used.

They should be used for figuring out precisely what it is the government is saying, sure. But as for adopting them for general use, why? Why should the people give the government control over how the people categorize the world? That's Newspeak.

Anyway, even if you're some kind of intellectual statist who feels people have a duty to use government definitions and think in terms of whatever concepts their government wants them to think in terms of, that's a moral judgment, not a logical one. It doesn't imply that heretically thinking for oneself qualifies as refusing to acknowledge facts staring one in the face.

What seems to escape you is that the same data-sets have been used for a long time, and while they may be skewed by factors not included, they are skewed equally. So when they show unequivocally that unemployment rises under Republican administrations and falls under Democratic administrations, you can take it to the bank.
No amount of retroactive modification of criteria is going to alter that FACT.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Republicans don't believe in disability.

Hyperbole much? Broad-brush much? You probably can't produce a single example of a Republican who doesn't believe in disability at all; and some believe in it more than others. Perhaps the idea you were trying to get across was "The average Republican has somewhat more stringent criteria than the average Democrat for considering a person disabled."?

"Republicans" is too broad a brush. I've met too many that don't give a hoot about those who can't work, though.

As for the actual numbers:

As medical technology improves you get the ironic result that it increases the number of disabled. In the past many of those would have simply died.

And you think medical technology has improved so much just in the last eight years that this effect can account for more than a little bit of the rise in people on disability?

You forget there's been a war going on--a war in which an awful lot of cases that would have been fatalities in the past are disabled instead.

We also have fewer and fewer jobs for those with very minimal ability--some people have become disabled by the disappearance of any job they can do, not by their condition getting worse.

But that isn't an example of "can't work". That's an example of "nobody will hire them". When somebody doesn't have a job because nobody will hire him, normal people call that "unemployment".

No. Somebody capable of working but not able to find work is unemployed.

Somebody for which there is no job they are capable of doing is disabled. It doesn't matter if that was due to no job existing at the time of their impairment, or if the no job state came later. When all someone can do is a very simple job and that very simple job is automated out of existence they become disabled.

(And in practice I think it should be a bit wider. If there are 10,000 people only suited to be elevator operators and only 100 elevator operator jobs they are de facto disabled.)

Finally, we have some where the docs are bending the rules. The health issues are real but not actually completely disabling. The tough job market made it impossible for them to find work, though--companies rightly evaluated them as the riskier hire and with better choices passed them over. Now they have been out of it long enough they won't get hired anyway. They meet the spirit of the law but not the letter of it.

But the spirit of the law (and often it's not a doctor but a judge bending the rule) is to be compassionate, help out a guy who needs help, and get him on disability when that's what's financially best for him, never mind whether it's what Congress actually voted to do in a case like his. Which is a fine and kindly act. But the morality of bending the rules on a case-by-case basis doesn't change the fact that the guy can work; and statistics that are based on having statisticians politely go along with the fiction that the guy can't work are going to be incorrect statistics. This isn't about whether people ought to get to go on disability; this is about whether we should deceive ourselves about what's happening in our economy.

If their physical state precludes them from getting any job they are disabled in my book.

If one reason official unemployment statistics look as good as they do is that a lot of people aren't being counted as unemployed because they're on disability because doctors and judges were kind to them even though they wouldn't have been on disability in 2008, that means unemployment hasn't really improved as much as the official statistics claim. This remains the case whether you think those people belong on disability or not. If we assume they really can't work, and it's good and proper for them to be on disability and the 2016 unemployment figures are therefore correct, that implies that in 2008 the unemployment figures were wrong. There were a lot of people in 2008 who couldn't work and should have been counted as disabled, but were instead counted as unemployed.

What you are missing is the job market changed. Someone might have been hireable in 2008 but not in 2016 given the same medical situation.

They should be used for figuring out precisely what it is the government is saying, sure. But as for adopting them for general use, why? Why should the people give the government control over how the people categorize the world? That's Newspeak.

The problem is you are rejecting the terms now because they don't agree with Trump's preaching.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The problem is you are rejecting the terms now because they don't agree with Trump's preaching.

No, the main problem is the persistent misrepresentation of much of what Bomb#20 says, by several people who apparently believe that what they're saying is true, even though they definitely should not.
Another problem consists in persistent and unwarranted attributions of beliefs and/or motivations to Trump's supporters.

 

[laughing dog]

The problem is you are rejecting the terms now because they don't agree with Trump's preaching.

No, the main problem is the persistent misrepresentation of much of what Bomb#20 says, by several people who apparently believe that what they're saying is true, even though they definitely should not.
Another problem consists in persistent and unwarranted attributions of beliefs and/or motivations to Trump's supporters.

Bomb #20's argument fails for 2 logical reasons and one empirical reason. First, the OP gives 2 examples of how Trump supporters fail to acknowledge facts. Bomb #20 does not argue against the stock market example. Their failure to acknowledge the fact that the stock market rose is sufficient to prove the OP thesis. Second, Bomb #20's argument basically argues that Trump supporters fail to even acknowledge generally accepted terminology in policy discussions - which is even a more damning indictment. The empirical problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Trump supporters interpret the term "unemployment" differently.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

First, Bomb#20 simply wasn't talking about the stalk market example. He was criticizing the logic in the OP, and that criticism holds even if the other example worked, because the OP offers both examples.
That aside, according to the poll the OP links to, 39% of Trump voters say the stock market went down. A slightly higher percentage got it right and said it went up (41%), and 19% do not know. That does not support the generalization that Trump supporters (voters or not) do not care about facts. A majority of them are not making a mistake.

Second, you claim:

Second, Bomb #20's argument basically argues that Trump supporters fail to even acknowledge generally accepted terminology in policy discussions - which is even a more damning indictment. The empirical problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Trump supporters interpret the term "unemployment" differently.

That is a serious misrepresentation of his position. Purely for example:

Why the heck would I have to prove that? I'm sure hardly any of them are using any definition consistently. Most of them are average Americans; they aren't Debate Club. They're making this stuff up as they go along, same as 90% of the non-Trump supporters. They have a neural net in their brains that pattern-matches mental images of people with "employed" and "unemployed", not a definition.

When a normal human finds out government statistics are based on a definition that doesn't count a thirty-year-old living in his parents' basement playing video games as "unemployed", it is perfectly reasonable for her to react by discounting government statistics. It's perfectly normal for her then, not having an obviously more reliable source, to resort to the normal human fallback algorithm: to judge the unemployment rate based on her own anecdotal experience with jobless people in her own community.

Obviously, he's not singling out Trump supporters, and he is giving an argument that should convince a reader.
Regardless, you can easily take a look at a dictionary definition. Dictionary definitions might not match common usage exactly, but they approach it, since that's the function of a dictionary - to reflect what people ordinarily mean - , rather than coming up with an artificial term. So:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unemployment
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unemployed
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/unemployment?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unemployed
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/unemployed
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/unemployed
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=unemployed

Third, there were several other misconstructions of Bomb#20's position in this thread. They don't go away after clarification (if that were needed).

 

[laughing dog]

First, Bomb#20 simply wasn't talking about the stalk market example. He was criticizing the logic in the OP, and that criticism holds even if the other example worked, because the OP offers both examples.

Wrong. He ignored the stock market example.

That aside, according to the poll the OP links to, 39% of Trump voters say the stock market went down. A slightly higher percentage got it right and said it went up (41%), and 19% do not know. That does not support the generalization that Trump supporters (voters or not) do not care about facts. A majority of them are not making a mistake.

Wrong. It is a fact it went up. Only 41% knew it went up, which means the rest (59%) do not know it went up.

That is a serious misrepresentation of his position....

Wrong on all counts.. He is talking about Trump supporters. Unemployment has a long and well-accepted meaning in discussions about economics that anyone who even remotely pays attention to such things knows.

I noticed you did not address the most flaw in his argument - there is no evidence that Trump supporters are using a different meaning of unemployment.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Wrong. He ignored the stock market example.

That aside, according to the poll the OP links to, 39% of Trump voters say the stock market went down. A slightly higher percentage got it right and said it went up (41%), and 19% do not know. That does not support the generalization that Trump supporters (voters or not) do not care about facts. A majority of them are not making a mistake.

Wrong. It is a fact it went up. Only 41% knew it went up, which means the rest (59%) do not know it went up.

That is a serious misrepresentation of his position....

Wrong on all counts.. He is talking about Trump supporters. Unemployment has a long and well-accepted meaning in discussions about economics that anyone who even remotely pays attention to such things knows.

I noticed you did not address the most flaw in his argument - there is no evidence that Trump supporters are using a different meaning of unemployment.

That's persistent misrepresentation of what he said, failure to acknowledge my explanation of your mistakes and insistence on some of them, with the addition of gross misrepresentation of what I said.

Of course, I obviously (very, very obviously to a person being rational) addressed the claim of a lack of evidence in his argument, pointed out that he was not at all singling out Trump's supporters, he was not at all claiming that Trump supporters are using a different meaning of unemployment (even quoted him), explained what he was saying about it, pointed out that his argument should have convinced you, and on top of that added plenty evidence - which was unnecessary, because it was a fact that is or should be commonly grasped by competent English speakers.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Wtf

 

[laughing dog]

That's persistent misrepresentation of what he said, failure to acknowledge my explanation of your mistakes and insistence on some of them, with the addition of gross misrepresentation of what I said.

Wrong. 59% of the people did not know the stock market went up. This is result of rational thought: if 41% knew it went up, then the rest (59%) did not. Are you having a problem with arithmetic, reasoning or understanding written English?

Of course, I did obviously (very, very obviously to a person being rational) addressed the claim of a lack of evidence in his argument,....

Wrong. As any rational and competent speaker of English would know, spouting possible definitions or notions is not evidence that Trump supporters are actually USING any of them.

That is obvious to rational person with basic reading comprehension skills from this
"It's perfectly normal for her then, not having an obviously more reliable source, to resort to the normal human fallback algorithm: to judge the unemployment rate based on her own anecdotal experience with jobless people in her own community.". Clearly anyone who is judging unemployment by something other than the official or normal understanding is using a different notion.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Wrong. 59% of the people did not know the stock market went up. This is result of rational thought: if 41% knew it went up, then the rest (59%) did not. Are you having a problem with arithmetic, reasoning or understanding written English?

In fact, according to the poll, 41% said it went up, and 19% did not know, while 39% said it went down. That makes up 99%, but the point is that given that only 39% got it wrong according to the poll, it's clearly not acceptable to conclude that Trump voters are "incapable of acknowledging a fact even when it is staring them in the face", as the fact that the market went up was not staring all of them in the face, and certainly not those who said they did not know. But even if 59% had answered that it went down, it would have been improper to reach the conclusion that Trump voters are incapable of acknowledging a fact even when it is staring them in the face.

Wrong. As any rational and competent speaker of English would know, spouting possible definitions or notions is not evidence that Trump supporters are actually USING any of them.


That is obvious to rational person with basic reading comprehension skills from this
"It's perfectly normal for her then, not having an obviously more reliable source, to resort to the normal human fallback algorithm: to judge the unemployment rate based on her own anecdotal experience with jobless people in her own community.". Clearly anyone who is judging unemployment by something other than the official or normal understanding is using a different notion.

No, clearly B20 was saying that the official notion is not the normal understanding, the normal understanding is what people normally do when they do not engage in technical reasoning, and that is what he described Trump supporters doing. That B20 said that should have been obvious to you, and clearly if it wasn't, it should be now after my pointing it out. That the technical understanding is not the normal/colloquial one should have been obvious to you, and if it wasn't, the dictionary evidence that you could have easily found on your own should have persuaded you.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Wrong. 59% of the people did not know the stock market went up. This is result of rational thought: if 41% knew it went up, then the rest (59%) did not. Are you having a problem with arithmetic, reasoning or understanding written English?

Of course, I did obviously (very, very obviously to a person being rational) addressed the claim of a lack of evidence in his argument,....

Wrong. As any rational and competent speaker of English would know, spouting possible definitions or notions is not evidence that Trump supporters are actually USING any of them.

That is obvious to rational person with basic reading comprehension skills from this
"It's perfectly normal for her then, not having an obviously more reliable source, to resort to the normal human fallback algorithm: to judge the unemployment rate based on her own anecdotal experience with jobless people in her own community.". Clearly anyone who is judging unemployment by something other than the official or normal understanding is using a different notion.

Actually the stock market tends to go up or down or up and down. Not everyone bothers to look at it unless there is long plunge, which ends up in the tax payer bailing out the banksters.

 

[bilby]

Oh for fucks sake, is everyone here statistically innumerate?

There are two possibilities - the market goes up, or it goes down.

Any group of individuals who do not care about the facts who are asked which occurred are (given that the facts are not relevant to their answer), going to pick an answer at random, or say 'don't know/don't care'.

Assuming that the 'don't care about facts' hypothesis is correct, one would predict a 50-50 split between 'went up' and 'went down' answers - and 39-41 is as close as fuckit to exactly that prediction.

If the vast majority of respondents gave the wrong answer, then that would be indicative of them actually caring about the facts, but being in denial of them.

A roughly half and half split with a sizeable 'don't know' vote is EXACTLY compatible with a population that doesn't care about the facts - and indeed, no other distribution matches that hypothesis.

 

[laughing dog]

In fact, according to the poll, 41% said it went up, and 19% did not know, while 39% said it went down. That makes up 99%, but the point is that given that only 39% got it wrong according to the poll, it's clearly not acceptable to conclude that Trump voters are "incapable of acknowledging a fact even when it is staring them in the face", as the fact that the market went up was not staring all of them in the face, and certainly not those who said they did not know. But even if 59% had answered that it went down, it would have been improper to reach the conclusion that Trump voters are incapable of acknowledging a fact even when it is staring them in the face.

It is a fact that the stock market went up. That fact was staring everyone in the face. That is true even if someone did not stare back. Since 41% knew and acknowledged that easily accessible fact, 59% did not know that accessible fact (basic arithmetic). So it is absolutely correct to conclude that about 60% of Trump supporters are incapable of acknowledging a fact when it is staring them in the face.

bibly lays out the same argument from a different angle in post 132 (the one above this one).

No, clearly B20 was saying that the official notion is not the normal understanding, the normal understanding is what people normally do when they do not engage in technical reasoning, and that is what he described Trump supporters doing. That B20 said that should have been obvious to you, and clearly if it wasn't, it should be now after my pointing it out. That the technical understanding is not the normal/colloquial one should have been obvious to you, and if it wasn't, the dictionary evidence that you could have easily found on your own should have persuaded you.

First, Bomb #20 presented no evidence that Trump supporters (or average people) used their own understanding of the term "unemployment". None.

Second, neither you nor he have presented an iota of evidence that people do not normally use the technical definition when thinking about unemployment.

Third, since you feel the need to be pedantic, there is no evidence that the average person (whom you claim Bomb 20 is describing) is a Trump supporter.

 

[Elixir]

Oh for fucks sake, is everyone here statistically innumerate?

There are two possibilities - the market goes up, or it goes down.

Any group of individuals who do not care about the facts who are asked which occurred are (given that the facts are not relevant to their answer), going to pick an answer at random, or say 'don't know/don't care'.

^^ That.
Many Trump voters (about 39% of them it seems) have no clue about the stock market, since they have nothing invested and nothing to invest. Why shouldn't they be expected to listen to their Cheeto-faced oracle when he tells them the market is down? Especially when that news is accompanied by the news that they will soon be wealthy beyond belief, which makes a down market sound pretty good, since the orange baboon promised to send it through the roof on day one of his presidency.

Aside - anyone know how to calculate where the DJIA would be today if you take Goldman Sachs out of the mix? I know that Don the Con is thanking himself for the markets' stellar performance since he started seeding his cabinet and advisory staff with Goldman Sachs personnel, so I was wondering what the rest of the market is doing while GS stock has gone up some 40% in the last few months...

 

[RavenSky]

Wtf

indeed.

Though I applaud Laughing Dog for his patience and excellent responses.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

By having a neutral party decide the penalties for transgressions, we break the vicious circle of revenge and counter-revenge (feuds, vendettas and the like), at the price of leaving victims always feeling that perpetrators got off lightly. That feeling stems from the evolved desire to harshly punish even slight transgressions, and it is yet another of our natural responses that we need to temper, if we are to remain civilised.

But that doesn't seem to indicate that there is no punishment, but rather, that the punishments are less harsh than in other social environments.

Oh for fucks sake, is everyone here statistically innumerate?

There are two possibilities - the market goes up, or it goes down.

Any group of individuals who do not care about the facts who are asked which occurred are (given that the facts are not relevant to their answer), going to pick an answer at random, or say 'don't know/don't care'.

Assuming that the 'don't care about facts' hypothesis is correct, one would predict a 50-50 split between 'went up' and 'went down' answers - and 39-41 is as close as fuckit to exactly that prediction.

If the vast majority of respondents gave the wrong answer, then that would be indicative of them actually caring about the facts, but being in denial of them.

A roughly half and half split with a sizeable 'don't know' vote is EXACTLY compatible with a population that doesn't care about the facts - and indeed, no other distribution matches that hypothesis.

First, as I said in my post, I was talking about the claim that Trump voters are incapable of acknowledging a fact even when it is staring them in the face.
Even if Trump voters did not care about whether the market went up or down, the conclusion that Trump voters are incapable of acknowledging a fact even when it is staring them in the face would be unwarranted on that basis.

Second, if you have 41% who say that the market went up, 39% who say it went down, and 19% are not sure, it's epistemically irrational to conclude that none of them knows the answer and/or that none of them cares about it.

Third, while roughly half and half split with a sizeable 'don't know' vote is compatible with a population that doesn't care about that particular fact (namely, whether the market went up or down), it's obviously extremely improbable than none of them cares about that - beyond a reasonable doubt that some do care -, or that they do not know about it. The percentage of those who do not care is unknown. But - again - even if most of them do not care about whether the market went up or down during the Obama administration, it would be unfair on that basis and false to say that none of them does, it would be irrational to conclude on that basis that they are incapable of acknowledging facts even when they're staring them in their faces (of course, whether the market went up or down is not staring them in their faces, especially not those who do not care about that particular fact), and so on.

Moreover, it would be irrational to conclude that Trump supporters do not care about facts even if they do not care about the particular fact of whether the market went up or down.

All that aside, the main problem still is the persistent misrepresentation of much of what Bomb#20 says, by several people who apparently believe that what they're saying is true, even though they definitely should not.

 

[Elixir]

The percentage of those who do not care is unknown.

At least 39% don't care, or they'd better inform themselves. Then add those who "guessed" correctly... you're at about half.
Alternately, 39%+ of Trump voters are too stupid to actually check on facts that do matter to them, when fed lies that they want to hear by an orange baboon.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is a fact that the stock market went up. That fact was staring everyone in the face. That is true even if someone did not stare back.

1. No, not remotely. That was not staring them in the face. There are plenty of people who do not care whether it went up or down, but it would be irrational to conclude on that basis that those people are incapable of acknowledging facts, even when they're staring them in the face.
2. Even if that argument held, the OP was also based on the claim about unemployment, so B20's points hold regardless.

Since 41% knew and acknowledged that easily accessible fact, 59% did not know that accessible fact (basic arithmetic).

First, one might as well say that since 39% denied it, and 19% said they were not sure, then 42% knew it. The fact is that you fail to consider the fact that they're rounding up their numbers, apparently.
Second, if we assume that 41% knew and acknowledged that fact, it's irrational to conclude that Trump voters are incapable of acknowledging a fact, even when it's staring them in the face. Clearly, that would demonize those who knew. But it would further demonize those who did not and did not care, because obviously the fact was not staring them in the face.
Third, while the fact was easily accessible, that's not remotely the same as a fact that is staring them in the face. You might as well say that most Americans are incapable of acknowledging a fact even when it's staring them in the face, because most Americans do not know (or do you doubt that they do not know it?) that Cristina Kirchner won over 54% of the votes in the 2011 presidential election in Argentina - an easily accessible fact! (and of course, there is no reason for most of them to care, but the point remains that easy accessibility does not imply that the fact is staring them in the face; many Trump supporters do not care about the stock market, either, and the numbers are not staring them in the face).

So it is absolutely correct to conclude that about 60% of Trump supporters are incapable of acknowledging a fact when it is staring them in the face.

First, even if it were correct to conclude that about 60% of Trump supporters are incapable of acknowledging a fact when it is staring them in the face, it would be improper to conclude that Trump supporters - unqualified statement - are incapable of acknowledging a fact even when it's staring them in the face.
Second, it's not remotely correct to conclude that about 60% of Trump supporters are incapable of acknowledging a fact when it is staring them in the face, since (among other reasons) there is no good reason to believe that that is a fact that was staring them in the face.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The percentage of those who do not care is unknown.

At least 39% don't care, or they'd better inform themselves. Then add those who "guessed" correctly... you're at about half.
Alternately, 39%+ of Trump voters are too stupid to actually check on facts that do matter to them, when fed lies that they want to hear by an orange baboon.

First, even if 39% of Trump voters don't care about that particular fact, it would be irrational to conclude on that basis that they can't acknowledge a fact even when it's staring them in the face, or that they do not know facts, or that they do not care about facts in general. But moreover, even if it were rational to conclude on that basis that 39% of Trump supporters (or 50% of Trump supporters, or whatever) do not care about facts, can't acknowledge a fact even when it's staring them in the face, etc., it would be irrational to conclude on that basis that Trump supporters simpliciter (rather than 39%, or 39% plus those who guessed right) do not care about facts, or that they can't acknowledge a fact even when it's staring them in the face, etc.

Second, all that aside, B20's objections would still succeed on the basis of the second example, which provides no good reason to reach any conclusion about whether Trump supporters care or not about facts, can acknowledge them, etc.

 

[Playball40]

Trump supporters are stupid idiots. Done.