What will be the turning point for some Trump supporters?

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's the Obamacare thing that I find the weirdest. He wants to keep the most expensive parts of Obamacare which drive the prices of insurance up but then ... get rid of the pieces which offset those costs? While I'm pretty sure that the first time he actually took the time to look into what Obamacare actually consisted of was last Wednesday, I'm really not sure how he's planning on reconciling his goals with reality at this point.

I think the detailed plan for Obama Care hasn't been finalized yet, so some things may change. The idea is sound but the financial cost is high. Indications are that the Democrats and Republicans will work together on this.

Huh? Health care is expensive?! Who fucking knew!?!?!

Trump says he's going to replace with something that is better and cheaper. Umm...

 

[Artemus]

I'm glad that you can enjoy your strawman of my post.

I'm not enjoying this conversation, and I did not post any strawman. I'm not glad that despite the fact that I was civil while correcting your mistake, your reply was a misrepresentation of the exchange - which is on record -, and now you attribute to me mental states that I don't have - not even close -, in addition to actions I did not do. In other words, business as usual when engaging with nearly all humans on the internet, as long as one corrects a mistake based on their ideology/religion.

OK, I'll try to explain:

1. Saying that a demographic overall supported an idea does not imply that every individual member of the demographic supported the idea.
2. Saying a demographic overall supported an idea does not imply that no one from another demographic supported that idea.
3. Saying a demographic overall supported an idea does not imply that all individuals in the demographic used the same reasoning to support the idea.
4. Saying that a demographic is hurt by a result does not imply that every individual member of the demographic is directly hurt by that result.
5. Saying that a demographic is hurt by a result does not imply that no individual from another demographic is directly hurt by the result.
6. Saying thatsome individuals from the demographic who supported the idea are likely to be hurt by the result does not equate to a claim to know precisely how every individual within (or, for that matter, not within) that demographic will be affected.

If (for example) unemployment in a demographic increases from 5% to 10% due to a policy change, it is perfectly correct to say that the demographic has been harmed even though only an additional 5% of the individuals within that demographic have been directly harmed. That is why I initially asked you why you responded if I had spoken in absolutes (that every individual in the demographic must be directly harmed for the demographic as a whole to be harmed).

I'll note that in your last sentence you have done exactly what you accused me of, attributed a mental state to me based on supposed ideology/religion. What ideology do you attribute to me?

I'll rephrase my initial statement: At some sick level, I find it ironically amusing that some of Trump's strongest supporters (some of whom I know personally, living in a small college town in a very red state) are very likely to be hurt if his policies are actually implemented.

 

[Elixir]

At some sick level, I find it ironically amusing that some of Trump's strongest supporters (some of whom I know personally, living in a small college town in a very red state) are very likely to be hurt if his policies are actually implemented.

Yup - they're going to be the first to get hurt. But!! That's the great thing about having those types as supporters; all ya gotta do is point at some people who look and/or sound different from them, and tell them it's THEIR fault, and the supporters will unerringly direct their ire at the designated culprits. Their pride will NEVER allow them to admit that they screwed themselves.

 

[marc]

A lot of people knew George W was a disaster from the start. But many who didn't closely follow politics thought he was ok for a long time. One person I went to see Fahrenheit 911 with thought the film was borderline treasonous, but now knows it was pretty accurate on a lot of stuff. I think for many the moment their eyes were opened was the Katrina disaster.

I think a lot more people see Trump for what he is, but for those that don't, or the 'give him a chance' crowd, what do you think will happen to make them realize he was a major mistake?

The only way to tell if it was a mistake is to see what happens in the next few months.
He won the election under the US system of democracy.
Should we have elections followed by coups?
If he is impeached or something like that then things should change.

??????

I never mentioned, or in any way implied a coup. I'm just wondering what would likely be an event that would finally make a lot of his voters reveal they made a big mistake. There is also some question as to how much of a disaster this administration will be, depending on how much of what he ran on actually gets done, and how much republicans are able to push through.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

1. Saying that a demographic overall supported an idea does not imply that every individual member of the demographic supported the idea.
2. Saying a demographic overall supported an idea does not imply that no one from another demographic supported that idea.
3. Saying a demographic overall supported an idea does not imply that all individuals in the demographic used the same reasoning to support the idea.
4. Saying that a demographic is hurt by a result does not imply that every individual member of the demographic is directly hurt by that result.
5. Saying that a demographic is hurt by a result does not imply that no individual from another demographic is directly hurt by the result.
6. Saying thatsome individuals from the demographic who supported the idea are likely to be hurt by the result does not equate to a claim to know precisely how every individual within (or, for that matter, not within) that demographic will be affected.

But that's not what you said. You said:

Ironically, a demographic that is that largely responsible for Trump getting elected, uneducated whites, is going to be seriously hurt by a Trump presidency through less access to health care and family planning, education, and employment opportunities. I'm going to take the low road and take a little joy in that.

To say that the demographic is "largely responsible" may or may not indicate, on its own, that all of them are responsible (maybe they are, but the "largely" indicates that some other demographics share some responsibility), so it would be unclear if you had only said that uneducated whites are largely responsible.
However, you said that uneducated whites are largely responsible, that that that demographic will be seriously hurt, and that you're going to take a little joy in the demographic getting hurt. That's a problem even if over 60% of the members of "the demographic" are responsible (or whatever the number), if you're right and "the demographic" gets hurt, people who are members of it get hurt indiscriminately.

If (for example) unemployment in a demographic increases from 5% to 10% due to a policy change, it is perfectly correct to say that the demographic has been harmed even though only an additional 5% of the individuals within that demographic have been directly harmed.

But it's not correct to take a little joy in the fact that unemployment in a demographic increases from 5% to 10% due to a policy change, due to the alleged responsibility of the demographic, given that there are plenty of members of that demographic who didn't do anything wrong - not to mention, of course, the other people who get hurt, like their children. Granted, their children are also uneducated whites for the most part in this case, but surely they're not to blame. And neither are many of the adults - maybe most of them.

That is why I initially asked you why you responded if I had spoken in absolutes (that every individual in the demographic must be directly harmed for the demographic as a whole to be harmed).

But I didn't respond as if you had said that every individual in the demographic must be directly harmed for the demographic as a whole to be harmed. The problem is that who gets harmed within that demographic is indiscriminate, not resulting from bearing responsibility.

There are other issues, such as whether overall uneducated whites will in fact suffer due to Trump's policies (I'm not sure), or whether Trump's voters deserve to lose their jobs (I don't think that's in general true), but I was leaving aside those other issues.

I'll note that in your last sentence you have done exactly what you accused me of, attributed a mental state to me based on supposed ideology/religion. What ideology do you attribute to me?

I didn't do that at all. What I said you'd done is to attribute a mental state to me after I corrected a mistake you made due to your ideology/religion. But you didn't correct any mistake on my part, let alone one I made based on ideology/religion, so I can't have done what I said you were doing. If I got your mental state wrong, that's my mistake, but not exactly the same mistake, or even similar to that. There was no ideology/religion-based claim on my part that you might be correcting.

As for what ideology/religion I attribute to you, I don't know the details, though it seems to be some kind of leftist ideology that led you to taking a little joy in uneducated whites getting indiscriminately hurt (you didn't say it's indiscriminate, but you either failed to realize that the hurt, if it happens, will be indiscriminate, or realized it, and failed to realize that that made it not okay to take joy in that).

I'll rephrase my initial statement: At some sick level, I find it ironically amusing that some of Trump's strongest supporters (some of whom I know personally, living in a small college town in a very red state) are very likely to be hurt if his policies are actually implemented.

That's not a rephrasing. It's better, because it avoids the problem of indiscriminate . Whether it's "sick" (or more precisely, wrong) depends on whether they deserve to be hurt in the way you think they will get hurt.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

semantic quibbling; tldr

And dont ask what i mean by that!!

 

[Malintent]

It's the Obamacare thing that I find the weirdest. He wants to keep the most expensive parts of Obamacare which drive the prices of insurance up but then ... get rid of the pieces which offset those costs? While I'm pretty sure that the first time he actually took the time to look into what Obamacare actually consisted of was last Wednesday, I'm really not sure how he's planning on reconciling his goals with reality at this point.

Reality has never been an obstacle for him up to this point. Why should he start considering it now?

His goals were to win the election via internet trolling and gaming the media. He won. Kicked The Truth, The Media, and Reality in the ass. Now, he needs to figure out how to be a President. I don't think a single thing he said during his campaign will have any impact on future events... he isn't trying to win that reality TV show anymore, so he is just going to do as close to nothing as any President has ever done.