Trump’s Appeal: What Psychology Tells Us

[Sixties Fan]

Nonsenese on many levels. Two big ones.

1. It was the REALITY of the Chinese Goverment involvement that drove the very low level of violence.

2. It was not Trump followers that attacked Asains.





If you make a claim like that, the very next sentence should be a quote supporting it. INstead,




Instead we have unsupported assertions. That is... a sign of propaganda, not serious writing.




It is also worth nothing that your cut and paste also includes teh CONSTANTLY debunked claim that Trump refused to denounce neo-nazis.

Your source is clearly.... not valid.

When Trump started calling Covid 19 the China Virus, it started attacks on Asians. Believe what you will.

It is all recorded, live and in color.

He used the term around March 15, 2020 on tweeter. From then on, attacks on Asians grew.
Coincidence? Not quite.

Trump never denounced the Neo nazis. He said that there were" Fine People On Both Sides". Only Nazis and Neo Nazis think that there are fine people amongst them. Their cause is just.

But Trump, who is not a Neo Nazi, could not denounce the violence created by the Nazis at a peaceful protest rally.
-------------
As Tim Murphy wrote in Mother Jones: “There was a reason David Duke immediately thanked Trump for his ‘honesty & courage’ afterwards. There’s a reason why so many Republicans who have otherwise had Trump’s back felt compelled to criticize him then. Trump ‘messed up,’ said then-House Speaker Paul Ryan. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement saying ‘there are no good neo-Nazis.’ Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) visited the White House to explain to the president why Trump’s comments were ‘painful.’”

Even the stalwart Trump bootlicker Sen. Lindsey Graham said the speech made white nationalists and other extremists “believe Mr. Trump is sympathetic to their cause.”

Are all of these Trump loyalists and Republican bigwigs secret MSNBC-watching liberal Hillary-bots? Or were they responding to what transpired in plain sight?

At best, the “very fine people” that existed in Trump’s imagination would have been marching alongside a host of obvious scumbags—those that were carrying Confederate flagsand assorted Nazi and fashy swag—screaming about world-controlling Jews and threatening violence.

If you march in public in common cause with actual Nazis, because you love that Robert E. Lee statue so gosh-darn much, are you really a very fine person?
--
There’s not a word about such “very fine people” in the almost-200 page independent report on that awful weekend in August 2017. And Robert Tracinski, a conservative writer for The Bulwark, wrote: “I live in the Charlottesville area, and I know very fine people who oppose the removal of the monuments based on high-minded notions about preserving history. I’m one of them. So I know that we weren’t there that night. Only the white nationalists were there.”

It’s Not a ‘Hoax’—Trump’s ‘Very Fine People’ Did Not Exist

The right’s revisionist history that Trump unequivocally denounced the neo-Nazis is bullsh*t. He invented fictitious “regular” folks protesting over a Robert E. Lee statue.

www.thedailybeast.com

------------------------

Donald Trump has referred to the coronavirus as “the Chinese virus”, escalating a deepening US-China diplomatic spat over the outbreak.

After giving an address on Monday warning of a possible recession, the US president posted on Twitter: “The United States will be powerfully supporting those industries, like Airlines and others, that are particularly affected by the Chinese Virus. We will be stronger than ever before!”


China’s foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said Trump should take care of his own matters first. “Some US politicians have tried to stigmatise China … which China strongly condemns,” he said at a press briefing on Tuesday. “We urge the US to stop this despicable practice. We are very angry and strongly oppose it [the tweet].”

The World Health Organization has advised against terms that link the virus to China or the city of Wuhan, where it was first detected, in order to avoid discrimination or stigmatisation.

Trump sparks anger by calling coronavirus the 'Chinese virus'

China’s foreign ministry says US president should ‘stop this despicable practice’

www.theguardian.com

How Trump Fueled Anti-Asian Violence in America

Trump’s encouragement of white supremacy and his strident anti-China rhetoric proved a toxic combination for Asian Americans.

thediplomat.com

Attacks on Asian Americans Spiked by 164% in First Quarter of 2021

The surge follows a similar spike in major US cities last year

www.voanews.com

As I said, believe what you wish ears and eyes to believe.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The former White House strategist Steve Bannon told aides that former President Donald Trump would often lie to win arguments, according to a new book cited by The Guardian.

Bannon said Trump "would say anything, he would lie about anything," The Guardian reported.

He also said that Trump lies "to win whatever exchange he [is] having at the moment," according to the outlet.

The "big lie" refers to the debunked conspiracy theory that Trump lost the 2020 election due to voter fraud.

Bannon pushed these voter-fraud claims after the election, though the former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg told The Atlanticlast month that the strategist only pushed the conspiracy theory to get a pardon. Bannon received a pardon as one of Trump's last acts in office.

The book excerpt comes on the heels of a Mother Jones report that said Bannon said before Election Day that Trump was already planning to reject the 2020 election results.

In the audio, recorded during an October 2020 meeting between Bannon and his associates, he can be heard saying that Trump is "just gonna say he's a winner" even if he loses.

(full article online)

Steve Bannon said Trump 'would lie about anything' to win arguments, new book says

The excerpt from Jonathan Lemire's book comes shortly after a report that Bannon said in Oct. 2020 that Trump was already planning to declare victory.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Correll]

When Trump started calling Covid 19 the China Virus, it started attacks on Asians. Believe what you will.

It is all recorded, live and in color.

He used the term around March 15, 2020 on tweeter. From then on, attacks on Asians grew.
Coincidence? Not quite.

Why not? You know other stuff was going on to. LIKE A GLOBAL PANDEMIC.

Yet you ignore the global pandemic as a possible cause of a tiny amount of violence and instead blame Trump. Based on....

Perhaps this has to do with YOUR "phychoogy".

Trump never denounced the Neo nazis. He said that there were" Fine People On Both Sides". Only Nazis and Neo Nazis think that there are fine people amongst them. Their cause is just.

He explicitly and clearly and repeatedly made the point that that was referring to both sides of the topic of historical statues.

He also, repeatedly and clearly adn explicitly denounced neo-nazis.

"and you had people – and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally –"

Full text: Trump’s comments on white supremacists, ‘alt-left’ in Charlottesville

A transcript of the president's remarks at Trump Tower.

www.politico.com

..... And Robert Tracinski, a conservative writer for The Bulwark, wrote: “I live in the Charlottesville area, and I know very fine people who oppose the removal of the monuments based on high-minded notions about preserving history. I’m one of them. So I know that we weren’t there that night. Only the white nationalists were there.”
...

Thank you for admitting that "very fine people" opposed removing the statues. It seems that Trump disagreed with Robert and believed that some of those very fine people were there that night.

That is the crux of the matter. Trump was clear that he believed that some of those people were there, and Robert believes that they were not.


BUT, whether or not Trump was right or wrong about that, the point is made, that he was NOT calling neo-nazis "very fine people".


It is an interesting question of PSYCHOLOGY, that you are so emotionally invested in a claim that is clearly false.

Donald Trump has referred to the coronavirus as “the Chinese virus”, escalating a deepening US-China diplomatic spat over the outbreak.

After giving an address on Monday warning of a possible recession, the US president posted on Twitter: “The United States will be powerfully supporting those industries, like Airlines and others, that are particularly affected by the Chinese Virus. We will be stronger than ever before!”


China’s foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said Trump should take care of his own matters first. “Some US politicians have tried to stigmatise China … which China strongly condemns,” he said at a press briefing on Tuesday. “We urge the US to stop this despicable practice. We are very angry and strongly oppose it [the tweet].”\\\\

The Chinese government is unhappy that they were held responsible for their actions? Got it. I'm not sure how that is relevant to the topic.

The World Health Organization has advised against terms that link the virus to China or the city of Wuhan, where it was first detected, in order to avoid discrimination or stigmatisation.

Trump sparks anger by calling coronavirus the 'Chinese virus'

China’s foreign ministry says US president should ‘stop this despicable practice’

www.theguardian.com

How Trump Fueled Anti-Asian Violence in America

Trump’s encouragement of white supremacy and his strident anti-China rhetoric proved a toxic combination for Asian Americans.

thediplomat.com

Attacks on Asian Americans Spiked by 164% in First Quarter of 2021

The surge follows a similar spike in major US cities last year

www.voanews.com

As I said, believe what you wish ears and eyes to believe.

Like I said, other stuff was going on during that time, such as the GLOBAL PANDEMIC. So, putting the blame on Trump seems odd.

Also, the violence was tiny. The better story is how little violence there was from mainstream America.

 

[Correll]

The former White House strategist Steve Bannon told aides that former President Donald Trump would often lie to win arguments, according to a new book cited by The Guardian.

Bannon said Trump "would say anything, he would lie about anything," The Guardian reported.

He also said that Trump lies "to win whatever exchange he [is] having at the moment," according to the outlet.

The "big lie" refers to the debunked conspiracy theory that Trump lost the 2020 election due to voter fraud.

Bannon pushed these voter-fraud claims after the election, though the former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg told The Atlanticlast month that the strategist only pushed the conspiracy theory to get a pardon. Bannon received a pardon as one of Trump's last acts in office.

The book excerpt comes on the heels of a Mother Jones report that said Bannon said before Election Day that Trump was already planning to reject the 2020 election results.

In the audio, recorded during an October 2020 meeting between Bannon and his associates, he can be heard saying that Trump is "just gonna say he's a winner" even if he loses.

(full article online)

Steve Bannon said Trump 'would lie about anything' to win arguments, new book says

The excerpt from Jonathan Lemire's book comes shortly after a report that Bannon said in Oct. 2020 that Trump was already planning to declare victory.

www.businessinsider.com

How does this relate to the "psychology" of Trump support.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Why blue lies are proliferating now​

Lies aren’t new on the American political scene.

Some politicians seemed to get away with antisocial lying, as with Bill Clinton’s deceit about his sexual infidelities; other careers were destroyed by deception, as happened with Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner, among others. But historians and political scientists like Edwards seem to agree: The scale, frequency, impact, and brazenness of Trump’s lies are unprecedented.

So what has changed?

Most scholars point to political and cultural polarization as the biggest cause. Research by Alexander George Theodoridis, a political scientist at the University of California, Merced, shows that “partisanship for many Americans today takes the form of a visceral, even subconscious, attachment to a party group.” According to his studies, Democrats and Republicans have become not merely political parties but tribes, whose affiliations shape the language, dress, hairstyles, purchasing decisions, friendships, and even love lives of their members.

“Our party becomes a part of our self-concept in deep and meaningful ways,” he writes. This self-concept includes racial identity. Several studies have shown that reminding white conservatives of President Obama’s race made them much more likely to believe that, for example, he is a Muslim born in Kenya. If they do not feel Obama is one of them, this work suggests, then they are more receptive to unfounded claims that dramatize their emotional truth.

Scientists call this kind of reasoning “directionally motivated,” meaning that conclusions are driven by feelings, not facts—and studies find that this is our default mode. As right-wing radio talk host Rush Limbaugh implied in the wake of a lie-riddled presidential press conference, facts don’t matter. What matters is what’s “in your heart.” It takes conscious effort to override directionally motivated reasoning.

That’s why, when the truth threatens our identity, that truth gets dismissed. For millions and millions of Americans, climate change is a hoax, Hillary Clinton ran a sex ring out of a pizza parlor, and immigrants cause crime. Whether they truly believe those falsehoods or not is debatable—and possibly irrelevant. The research to date suggests that they see those lies as useful weapons in a tribal us-against-them competition that pits the “real America” against those who would destroy it.

Indeed, when I told the truth in the first sentence of this piece and said Donald Trump lies, I almost certainly inflamed readers who identify with the president and see him as their champion. The truth may feel like an attack on who they are, as human beings.

How anger fuels lying​

Here we come to the role of anger.

Sociologists like Arlie Hochschild and Katherine J. Cramer have found widespread rage and resentment among GOP voters, specifically against educated, urban liberals. Other studies have found extreme hostility for constituencies that are perceived as Democratic, such as women, immigrants, and African-Americans.

​

This anger is the soil in which lies can grow.

In a series of four experiments described in a 2016 paper, Maurice Schweitzer and Jeremy Yip provoked participants to feel different emotions; they induced anger, for example, by giving insulting feedback on essays written in the lab (calling them “boring” or “stupid”). Then participants could play games for real money—and they were deliberately given opportunities to lie for their own gain.

The predictable result: Participants angered by the feedback were much more likely to lie.

“Angry people focus on their self-interest,” says Schweitzer. “My research shows this.”

Thus he is not surprised by how Trump supporters have responded to the president’s lies. “Many people are angry about how they have been left behind in the current economic climate,” he says. “Trump has tapped into that anger, and he is trusted because he professes to feel angry about the same things.”

Not only has Trump tapped existing anger, but his rhetoric has fueled and amplified it. “Trump has created a siege-like mentality,” says Schweitzer. “Foreign countries are out to get us; the media is out to get him. This is a rallying cry that bonds people together.”

It’s important to note that Democrats have shown themselves to be susceptible to the effects of polarization and anger as well. During the antagonistic Democratic primary, lies proliferated within the party about Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and their supporters. Many Democrats fell for those lies for the same reason people fall for all blue lies: because the questionable or false information helped their cause, providing ammunition for their battle against the other side.

Where does that leave us? In a political landscape shaped by rage, deceit, and tribalism, how can we highlight facts and truth?


(full article online)

The psychology behind Trump's unnecessary lying

Perhaps because of a clinical psychologist-in-residence, psychological terms and diagnostic information are, well, among the household items in our home,...

www.dailysabah.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

Trump's Alma Mater Disputes His Allegations Of Graduating Top Of His Class | Essence

The University of Pennsylvania student paper releases records that expose Trump for saying he graduated top of his class. Turns out, he didn't even graduate with honors.

www.essence.com

 

[sartre play]

[ Knowing how to rally people and voters and supporters to one's side is not the same as eventually governing well and fairly. Governing depends on following the Constitution and the Rule of Law. How much did Trump follow the Constitution and the Rule of Law, how much of either did he attempt to change for his own interests and not those of the country? How much do his supporters know about the Constitution and Rule of Law he so often attempted to change? ]


Behind his unforeseen success in the 2016 election was a masterful use of group psychology principles

• Donald Trump's rallies enacted how Trump and his followers would like the country to be. They were, in essence, identity festivals.
• Trump succeeded by providing a categorical grid—a clear definition of groups and intergroup relations—that allowed many Americans to make sense of their lived experiences.
• Within this framework, he established himself as a prototypical American and a voice for people who otherwise felt voiceless.
• His rivals did not deploy the skills of identity leadership to present an inclusive narrative of “us.” In that context, Trump had a relatively free run.

It is easy and common to dismiss those whose political positions we disagree with as fools or knaves—or, more precisely, as fools led by knaves. Indeed, the inability of even the most experienced pundits to grasp the reality of Donald Trump's political ascendency in the 2016 presidential race parallels an unprecedented assault on the candidate and his supporters, which went so far as to question their very grip on reality. So it was that when a Suffolk University/USA Today poll asked 1,000 people in September 2015 to describe Trump in their own terms, the most popular response was “idiot/jerk/stupid/dumb,” followed by “arrogant” and “crazy/nuts,” and then “buffoon/clown/comical/joke.” Similarly, Trump's followers were dismissed in some media accounts as idiots and bigots. Consider this March 2016 headline from a commentary in Salon: “Hideous, Disgusting Racists: Let's Call Donald Trump and His Supporters Exactly What They Are.”

Such charges remind us of Theodore Abel's fascinating 1938 text Why Hitler Came into Power, but first let us be absolutely explicit: We are not comparing Trump, his supporters or their arguments to the Nazis. Instead our goal is to expose some problems in the ways that commentators analyze and explain behaviors of which we disapprove. In 1934 Abel traveled to Germany and ran an essay competition, offering a prize for autobiographies of Nazi Party members. He received around 600 responses, from which he was able to glean why so many Germans supported Adolf Hitler. Certainly many essays expressed a fair degree of anti-Semitism and some a virulent hatred of Jews. In this sense, party members were indeed racists or, at the very least, did not object to the party's well-known anti-Semitic position. But this is very different from saying that they joined and remained in the party primarily or even partially because they were racists. Abel discovered that many other motives were involved, among them a sense of the decline of Germany, a desire to rediscover past greatness, a fear of social disorder and the longing for a strong leader.

We would argue that the same is true of those who supported Trump. Some, undoubtedly, were white supremacists. All were prepared to live with his racist statements about Muslims, Mexicans and others. But are racism, bigotry and bias the main reasons people supported Trump? Certainly not. We argue instead that we need to analyze and understand the way he appealed to people and why he elicited their support.

Moreover, we need to respect those we study if we want to understand their worldview, their preferences and their decisions.

To understand how Trump appealed to voters, we start by looking at what went on inside a Trump event. For this, we are indebted to a particularly insightful analysis by journalist Gwynn Guilford, who, acting as an ethnographer, participated in Trump rallies across the state of Ohio in March 2016. We then analyze why Trump appealed to his audience, drawing on what we have referred to as the new psychology of leadership. Here we suggest that Trump's skills as a collective sense maker—someone who shaped and responded to the perspective of his audience—were very much the secret of his success.


Adapted from Why Irrational Politics Appeals: Understanding the Allure of Trump, edited by Mari Fitzduff, with permission from ABC-CLIO/Praeger, Copyright © 2017.

Editor’s note: All but the last section of this article was written before Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election, making its insights all the more remarkable. It was updated for Scientific American Mind.

Trump's Appeal: What Psychology Tells Us

Behind his unforeseen success in the 2016 election was a masterful use of group psychology principles

www.scientificamerican.com

INTRESTING. Good point about the political & monetary decline of GERMANY, and HITLERS call saying that if he was the leader Germany would gain world power and Arian rule.

 

[bripat9643]

[ Knowing how to rally people and voters and supporters to one's side is not the same as eventually governing well and fairly. Governing depends on following the Constitution and the Rule of Law. How much did Trump follow the Constitution and the Rule of Law, how much of either did he attempt to change for his own interests and not those of the country? How much do his supporters know about the Constitution and Rule of Law he so often attempted to change? ]


Behind his unforeseen success in the 2016 election was a masterful use of group psychology principles

• Donald Trump's rallies enacted how Trump and his followers would like the country to be. They were, in essence, identity festivals.
• Trump succeeded by providing a categorical grid—a clear definition of groups and intergroup relations—that allowed many Americans to make sense of their lived experiences.
• Within this framework, he established himself as a prototypical American and a voice for people who otherwise felt voiceless.
• His rivals did not deploy the skills of identity leadership to present an inclusive narrative of “us.” In that context, Trump had a relatively free run.

It is easy and common to dismiss those whose political positions we disagree with as fools or knaves—or, more precisely, as fools led by knaves. Indeed, the inability of even the most experienced pundits to grasp the reality of Donald Trump's political ascendency in the 2016 presidential race parallels an unprecedented assault on the candidate and his supporters, which went so far as to question their very grip on reality. So it was that when a Suffolk University/USA Today poll asked 1,000 people in September 2015 to describe Trump in their own terms, the most popular response was “idiot/jerk/stupid/dumb,” followed by “arrogant” and “crazy/nuts,” and then “buffoon/clown/comical/joke.” Similarly, Trump's followers were dismissed in some media accounts as idiots and bigots. Consider this March 2016 headline from a commentary in Salon: “Hideous, Disgusting Racists: Let's Call Donald Trump and His Supporters Exactly What They Are.”

Such charges remind us of Theodore Abel's fascinating 1938 text Why Hitler Came into Power, but first let us be absolutely explicit: We are not comparing Trump, his supporters or their arguments to the Nazis. Instead our goal is to expose some problems in the ways that commentators analyze and explain behaviors of which we disapprove. In 1934 Abel traveled to Germany and ran an essay competition, offering a prize for autobiographies of Nazi Party members. He received around 600 responses, from which he was able to glean why so many Germans supported Adolf Hitler. Certainly many essays expressed a fair degree of anti-Semitism and some a virulent hatred of Jews. In this sense, party members were indeed racists or, at the very least, did not object to the party's well-known anti-Semitic position. But this is very different from saying that they joined and remained in the party primarily or even partially because they were racists. Abel discovered that many other motives were involved, among them a sense of the decline of Germany, a desire to rediscover past greatness, a fear of social disorder and the longing for a strong leader.

We would argue that the same is true of those who supported Trump. Some, undoubtedly, were white supremacists. All were prepared to live with his racist statements about Muslims, Mexicans and others. But are racism, bigotry and bias the main reasons people supported Trump? Certainly not. We argue instead that we need to analyze and understand the way he appealed to people and why he elicited their support.

Moreover, we need to respect those we study if we want to understand their worldview, their preferences and their decisions.

To understand how Trump appealed to voters, we start by looking at what went on inside a Trump event. For this, we are indebted to a particularly insightful analysis by journalist Gwynn Guilford, who, acting as an ethnographer, participated in Trump rallies across the state of Ohio in March 2016. We then analyze why Trump appealed to his audience, drawing on what we have referred to as the new psychology of leadership. Here we suggest that Trump's skills as a collective sense maker—someone who shaped and responded to the perspective of his audience—were very much the secret of his success.


Adapted from Why Irrational Politics Appeals: Understanding the Allure of Trump, edited by Mari Fitzduff, with permission from ABC-CLIO/Praeger, Copyright © 2017.

Editor’s note: All but the last section of this article was written before Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election, making its insights all the more remarkable. It was updated for Scientific American Mind.

Trump's Appeal: What Psychology Tells Us

Behind his unforeseen success in the 2016 election was a masterful use of group psychology principles

www.scientificamerican.com

Leftwing propaganda.

 

[sartre play]

No, but Mac is right ---- it IS personal. We want vengeance now; we can see that this is purest, evilest political persecution of a rival to the Dems that they are trying to destroy.

Sometimes that kind of thing backfires and the other side wins, like Trump winning unexpectedly in 2016. We'll see. We want revenge now.

Am not sure that REVENGE is in the best interest of our country.

 

[sartre play]

I'm not responsible for your attention deficit disorder.

There is medication that might help....speak to your doctor to see if it's right for you.

Personal insults are not intelligent educated reply's
Learning about how those who have different views think.
Trying to make sense of the mess we are in is hard messy work.

 

[sartre play]

That is not correct. The Democratic Party is more diverse than the Republican one, always has been.
The stats speak for themselves

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/18/democratic-party-was-more-racially-diverse-1996-than-republican-party-is-today/

Democrats Racially Diverse; Republicans Mostly White

Eighty-nine percent of Republicans nationwide in 2012 were non-Hispanic white. The percentages of independents (70%) and Democrats (60%) who are white were substantially smaller.

news.gallup.com

Democrats lead in diversity in new Congress despite GOP gains

The House is set to have record numbers of women and racial minorities in the new Congress, but most of that diversity will come on the Democratic side of the aisle despite notable GOP gains in Nov…

thehill.com

Agree, getting Democratic voters to work in lock step a very rare occurrence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Personal insults are not intelligent educated reply's
Learning about how those who have different views think.
Trying to make sense of the mess we are in is hard messy work.

Insult????

Advice to help overcome a serious disorder.

Please explain how you determined that the word "think" applied to that poster.....or, to you.

 

[Circe]

Am not sure that REVENGE is in the best interest of our country.

But it is the very function of anger (see De Ira by Seneca) so it's definitely in the best interests of conservatives.

 

[Correll]

Scientists call this kind of reasoning “directionally motivated,” meaning that conclusions are driven by feelings, not facts—and studies find that this is our default mode. As right-wing radio talk host Rush Limbaugh implied in the wake of a lie-riddled presidential press conference, facts don’t matter. What matters is what’s “in your heart.” It takes conscious effort to override directionally motivated reasoning.

Like the way you continue to believe that Trump refused to condemn neo-nazis, even though it has been proven to you that he did, multiple times?

(both, he did it multiple times, and it has been proven to you multiple times)

 

[Sixties Fan]

Like the way you continue to believe that Trump refused to condemn neo-nazis, even though it has been proven to you that he did, multiple times?

(both, he did it multiple times, and it has been proven to you multiple times)

It has not been proven, especially by the article I posted where a resident of Charlottesville, himself, a Republican, said he would never have called the Neo Nazis who marched against the protestors, Nice people.

Remember this?

... And Robert Tracinski, a conservative writer for The Bulwark, wrote: “I live in the Charlottesville area, and I know very fine people who oppose the removal of the monuments based on high-minded notions about preserving history. I’m one of them. So I know that we weren’t there that night. Only the white nationalists were there.”


So, I will ask you this. Can White Nationalists, aka, White Supremacists, be put in the same category as those who follow the Constitution and the Rule of Law of the USA?

 

[Correll]

...

Remember this?

... And Robert Tracinski, a conservative writer for The Bulwark, wrote: “I live in the Charlottesville area, and I know very fine people who oppose the removal of the monuments based on high-minded notions about preserving history. I’m one of them. So I know that we weren’t there that night. Only the white nationalists were there.”

...

Yes I do remember that. And that is the crux of the matter. Where those good people there or not.


It is very clear, explicitly and repeatedly that Trump was NOT saying that neo-nazies are "very fine people". I am not saying it, either.

See, I am happy to discuss the psychology of politics. But, the vast majority fo the time the issue is brought up, people can only see the other side's issues, and not their own.


You talk of tribes. We are seperate tribes now. YOu have a psychological need to see the other as bad. So you believe it, and then go forth and find rationalizations for it. And you believe them, no matter what.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Yes I do remember that. And that is the crux of the matter. Where those good people there or not.


It is very clear, explicitly and repeatedly that Trump was NOT saying that neo-nazies are "very fine people". I am not saying it, either.

See, I am happy to discuss the psychology of politics. But, the vast majority fo the time the issue is brought up, people can only see the other side's issues, and not their own.


You talk of tribes. We are seperate tribes now. YOu have a psychological need to see the other as bad. So you believe it, and then go forth and find rationalizations for it. And you believe them, no matter what.

Amongst the Neo Nazis? No

There were two groups.
The Protesters were one. The Neo Nazis were the other one.

The two clashed.

There is not other group but the two.

 

[Correll]

Amongst the Neo Nazis? No

There were two groups.
The Protesters were one. The Neo Nazis were the other one.

The two clashed.

There is not other group but the two.

Trump and I obviously beleive differently. We believe that some of the good people were there "among the neo nazis".


I've said this to you multiple times now. Trump clearly stated it.


Clearly you belief in the opposite, is not based on anything Trump or I have ever said, but on a physcological need of YOURS.


Which is widely shared by liberals in general.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Trump and I obviously beleive differently. We believe that some of the good people were there "among the neo nazis".


I've said this to you multiple times now. Trump clearly stated it.


Clearly you belief in the opposite, is not based on anything Trump or I have ever said, but on a physcological need of YOURS.


Which is widely shared by liberals in general.

Belief is not proof. No evidence. Not one of those non Nazis who were allegedly marching amongst them has ever come out and said they were marching with the Nazis against the protesters.

That is distorting the meaning of what he said.

Believe what you will.

 

[Correll]

Belief is not proof. No evidence. Not one of those non Nazis who were allegedly marching amongst them has ever come out and said they were marching with the Nazis against the protesters.

That is distorting the meaning of what he said.

Believe what you will.

Proof is irrelevant.


Trump and I beleive it, thus when we say that some "very fine people" were there, on "both sides", we are NOT talking about the neo nazis, but on the NOT neo nazis who still support the statues, like your source, Robert Tracinski.


We are either right, or we are wrong, either way, we are NOT saying that neo-nazis are "very fine people".


Thus, the point you made that Trump is sympathetic to them, is based on your ASSUMPTION that he agrees with you on who was there, when he has made it clear, repeatedly and explicitly, that he does NOT.


That is, I think, Confirmation Bias on your part.