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

[Trausti]

All politics are local. The government can cook the statistics all it wants. But if you, your friend, or neighbor is out of work or are underemployed, that's what really matters. See Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Tarring people who vote different that you as stupid is just assploding arrogance.

The more ardent Trump supporters are stupid. The evangelicals that voted for him are stupid. This is verifiable.

Good point. They should have instead deferred to non-stupid and astute Clinton supporters like Miley Cyrus, Cher, and Omar Mateen. What a brain trust that is.

 

[Toni]

All politics are local. The government can cook the statistics all it wants. But if you, your friend, or neighbor is out of work or are underemployed, that's what really matters. See Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Tarring people who vote different that you as stupid is just assploding arrogance.

The more ardent Trump supporters are stupid. The evangelicals that voted for him are stupid. This is verifiable.

Uneducated, yes. Some due to circumstances and some simply saw no point. Stupid? No. Actually some are fairly smart. At least among the number that I am personally acquainted with, work with, am related to (by marriage).

Common theme is that nothing is ever their fault and everything is very unfair. At least one (co-worker) is definitely a sociopath who worships money and power and probably jerks off to fantasies of being Trump's long lost son. To the best of my knowledge, none has voluntarily read a single book since they graduated from high school, including the college grads.

But not stupid.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because the FACT Trump voters refuse to acknowledge is that unemployment has gone down under the Obama administration. When measuring apples to apples, the FACT is that unemployment has gone down under the Obama administration. It doesn't really matter if you prefer to compare oranges to oranges, the FACT remains that unemployment has gone down under the Obama administration.

Ravensky, let me draw your attention to four facts.

1. Telling me something is a fact three times does not make it a fact. Your use of proof-by-repetition doesn't mean you have a case.

2. If a we call a tail a leg, a dog has four legs. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one.

3. The circumstance that the government chooses to use the word "unemployment" to refer to a quantity it calculates by deliberately ignoring some categories of jobless people has no power to magically make others who don't choose to ignore all of those people when they use the word "unemployment" into people who are "incapable of acknowledging facts." Agreeing to speak and to think in terms of some government's Newspeak vocabulary is not one of the requirements for qualifying as a fact-acknowledging person. To imply that it is one of the requirements is illogical.

4. When you call "unemployment has gone down under the Obama administration" a FACT, you are playing a word game. You could say "The U3 rate has gone down under the Obama administration." That would be a fact. But pointing out that joblessness has increased under the Obama administration does not make a person guilty of denying that the U3 rate has gone down. When you make believe that it does -- when you treat "unemployment" and "the U3 rate" as synonyms, not in your own speech but in the speech of those you are condemning, you are committing an equivocation fallacy.

By any reasonable measure unemployment has gone down.

The problem is that an awful lot of the employed are in part time jobs when they want full time jobs.

 

[RavenSky]

Because the FACT Trump voters refuse to acknowledge is that unemployment has gone down under the Obama administration. When measuring apples to apples, the FACT is that unemployment has gone down under the Obama administration. It doesn't really matter if you prefer to compare oranges to oranges, the FACT remains that unemployment has gone down under the Obama administration.

Ravensky, let me draw your attention to four facts...

Bomb #20, telling me something is a fact three times does not make it a fact. Your use of proof-by-repetition doesn't mean you have a case.

But it certainly illustrates the point of the OP. Good job!

 

[RavenSky]

The more ardent Trump supporters are stupid. The evangelicals that voted for him are stupid. This is verifiable.

Uneducated, yes. Some due to circumstances and some simply saw no point. Stupid? No.

Let's remember here that it is Bomb #20 calling them "stupid"

 

[Elixir]

When they give us such good reason, it's hard to resist.

Well, then, I guess you're stupid. (Couldn't resist. )

I guess that means that now you, your friend or neighbor now constitute about 0.0016406% of the workforce.

 

[laughing dog]

Because the FACT Trump voters refuse to acknowledge is that unemployment has gone down under the Obama administration. When measuring apples to apples, the FACT is that unemployment has gone down under the Obama administration. It doesn't really matter if you prefer to compare oranges to oranges, the FACT remains that unemployment has gone down under the Obama administration.

Ravensky, let me draw your attention to four facts.

1. Telling me something is a fact three times does not make it a fact. Your use of proof-by-repetition doesn't mean you have a case.

2. If a we call a tail a leg, a dog has four legs. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one.

3. The circumstance that the government chooses to use the word "unemployment" to refer to a quantity it calculates by deliberately ignoring some categories of jobless people has no power to magically make others who don't choose to ignore all of those people when they use the word "unemployment" into people who are "incapable of acknowledging facts." Agreeing to speak and to think in terms of some government's Newspeak vocabulary is not one of the requirements for qualifying as a fact-acknowledging person. To imply that it is one of the requirements is illogical.

Joblessness covers a wide number of situations, including retirees and those who are incapacitated. It is illogical to include people who do not want to work or people who cannot work as part of the labor force.

Whether you like it or not, the rate of unemployment and the number of unemployed persons in the US labor force has fallen consistently since 2010. Those are facts. Hence your entire argument hinges on the defense that Trump supporters are not stupid but illogical.

 

[Playball40]

Exactly! Now if you want to bitch, then point to the pay for said jobs has shrunk. Point to the higher paying jobs are disappearing. There are plenty of things to point to and be upset about, so quibbling over a point, of which you are incorrect, seems pointless.

Ravensky, let me draw your attention to four facts.

1. Telling me something is a fact three times does not make it a fact. Your use of proof-by-repetition doesn't mean you have a case.

2. If a we call a tail a leg, a dog has four legs. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one.

3. The circumstance that the government chooses to use the word "unemployment" to refer to a quantity it calculates by deliberately ignoring some categories of jobless people has no power to magically make others who don't choose to ignore all of those people when they use the word "unemployment" into people who are "incapable of acknowledging facts." Agreeing to speak and to think in terms of some government's Newspeak vocabulary is not one of the requirements for qualifying as a fact-acknowledging person. To imply that it is one of the requirements is illogical.

Joblessness covers a wide number of situations, including retirees and those who are incapacitated. It is illogical to include people who do not want to work or people who cannot work as part of the labor force.

Whether you like it or not, the rate of unemployment and the number of unemployed persons in the US labor force has fallen consistently since 2010. Those are facts. Hence your entire argument hinges on the defense that Trump supporters are not stupid but illogical.

 

[Elixir]

Exactly! Now if you want to bitch, then point to the pay for said jobs has shrunk. Point to the higher paying jobs are disappearing. There are plenty of things to point to and be upset about, so quibbling over a point, of which you are incorrect, seems pointless.

Got me! I thought it was a straightforward attempt to validate the OP title.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Uneducated, yes. Some due to circumstances and some simply saw no point. Stupid? No.

Let's remember here that it is Bomb #20 calling them "stupid"

Actually, Bomb#20 has not called anyone "stupid" in this thread.

 

[RavenSky]

Let's remember here that it is Bomb #20 calling them "stupid"

Actually, Bomb#20 has not called anyone "stupid" in this thread.

... That Trump voters are too stupid to understand...

...

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Actually, Bomb#20 has not called anyone "stupid" in this thread.

... That Trump voters are too stupid to understand...

...

That's a quote out of context, and a sentence cut in a way that gives the wrong impression. Without the context (and, in particular, without the rest of that sentence), it might give the impression (to a reader unaware of the context) that Bomb#20 was calling Trump's voters "stupid". However, once one considers the context, it is apparent - or at least it should be apparent - that Bomb#20 has not called anyone "stupid" in this thread.

Let's look at the context:

So your theory is what? That Trump voters are too stupid to understand that people who have given up looking for work aren't fully human, and therefore when the government doesn't count them as unemployed, and is thus able to report a falling unemployment rate, it's correct?

By "your theory", he referred to your (i.e., RavenSky's) theory, since it was a reply to one of your posts (you can take a look at his post for more context), so it is clear that Bomb#20 was not calling Trump supporters (and/or Trump voters, or anyone else) "stupid".

 

[RavenSky]

That's a quote out of context...

...So, Bomb#20 was not calling Trump supporters "stupid".

Is Bomb #20 the first person in this thread to use the word "stupid" in reference to Trump supporters, or is he not? If you say "not", then you need to provide a link to whichever post ahead of his that uses the word "stupid" about Trump supporters. If you can't do that, then my statement stands, and everyone - including and especially you - can quit allowing Bomb #20's use of "too stupid" in reference to Trump supporters" to continue acting as a red herring here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The more ardent Trump supporters are stupid. The evangelicals that voted for him are stupid. This is verifiable.

Uneducated, yes. Some due to circumstances and some simply saw no point. Stupid? No. Actually some are fairly smart. At least among the number that I am personally acquainted with, work with, am related to (by marriage).

Common theme is that nothing is ever their fault and everything is very unfair. At least one (co-worker) is definitely a sociopath who worships money and power and probably jerks off to fantasies of being Trump's long lost son. To the best of my knowledge, none has voluntarily read a single book since they graduated from high school, including the college grads.

But not stupid.

Any evangelical that loves Jesus is fucking stupid for voting for Trump.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That's a quote out of context...

...So, Bomb#20 was not calling Trump supporters "stupid".

Is Bomb #20 the first person in this thread to use the word "stupid" in reference to Trump supporters, or is he not? If you say "not", then you need to provide a link to whichever post ahead of his that uses the word "stupid" about Trump supporters. If you can't do that, then my statement stands, and everyone - including and especially you - can quit allowing Bomb #20's use of "too stupid" in reference to Trump supporters" to continue acting as a red herring here.

First, your statement does not stand regardless of any other considerations, because you said Bomb#20 is calling them (i.e., Trump supporters or voters) "stupid", and he is not, and was not. He used the word "stupid" in a question about what your theory was about Trump supporters.

Second, Bomb#20 is not using "too stupid" in reference to Trump's supporters. He said "So your theory is what? That Trump voters are too stupid to understand that people who have given up looking for work aren't fully human, and therefore when the government doesn't count them as unemployed, and is thus able to report a falling unemployment rate, it's correct?", which is clearly not an instance of using "too stupid" to refer to anyone.

Third, I'm not sure what red herring you're talking about. But he did not call them "too stupid".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Did you write all that semantic apologia with a straight face?

 

[laughing dog]

... That Trump voters are too stupid to understand...

...

That's a quote out of context, and a sentence cut in a way that gives the wrong impression. Without the context (and, in particular, without the rest of that sentence), it might give the impression (to a reader unaware of the context) that Bomb#20 was calling Trump's voters "stupid". However, once one considers the context, it is apparent - or at least it should be apparent - that Bomb#20 has not called anyone "stupid" in this thread.

Let's look at the context:

So your theory is what? That Trump voters are too stupid to understand that people who have given up looking for work aren't fully human, and therefore when the government doesn't count them as unemployed, and is thus able to report a falling unemployment rate, it's correct?

By "your theory", he referred to your (i.e., RavenSky's) theory, since it was a reply to one of your posts (you can take a look at his post for more context), so it is clear that Bomb#20 was not calling Trump supporters (and/or Trump voters, or anyone else) "stupid".

Your argument would have more merit if RavenSky's theory required Trump voters to be stupid. But it doesn't. Whether you like it or not, the fact is that Bomb #20 injected "stupid" into the discussion in his mischaracterization of RavenSky's OP.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Did you write all that semantic apologia with a straight face?

That's not a "semantic apologia", and what I said is true.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Your argument would have more merit if RavenSky's theory required Trump voters to be stupid. But it doesn't.

My argument is independent of whether RavenSky's theory required that Trump's voters be stupid. Bomb#20 did not call them "stupid", so that's enough for my argument. If other people then misread and began talking about whether they were stupid, that's not related to the matter of whether Bomb#20 called them "stupid". He did not.

 

[Bomb#20]

So your theory is what? That Trump voters are too stupid to understand that people who have given up looking for work aren't fully human, and therefore when the government doesn't count them as unemployed, and is thus able to report a falling unemployment rate, it's correct?

Yup... it was like that under Obama... and the W Bush before him.

"Yup"? What kind of an answer is that? Yup what? Do you mean, Yup, that's Ravensky's theory? Yup, people who have given up looking for work aren't fully human? Yup, the government is correct to not count people who have given up looking for work as unemployed?

Or do you just mean, Yup, the government doesn't count them as unemployed? If that's what you mean, duh. What's your point? That this has long been the custom so it doesn't reflect badly on Obama that the government does this? Nobody said it does. As I already mentioned upthread, I'm not criticizing Obama. I'm criticizing Ravensky.

Also umm... Baby Boomers are retiring which is a notable cause for fewer people in the workforce.

Yup. Again, what's your point? As I already mentioned upthread, it's a cause but not the only cause; the fraction of people having jobs has gone down even just among those below retirement age. See the graph.