7 ms·

What I think alot of Trump supporters are taking seriously is the phenomena that is the left feeding off It's own hyperbole, it's pretty disturbing.

throwaway5752 10y ago
And a lot of us on both sides of the former partisan political spectrum are wonder what - if any - boundaries Trump supporters have past which they would not defend the actions of this administration.
- pm90 10y ago
  There aren't any, and I'm serious about it. Unless Trump does something that is totally and obviously anti-populist, like raise taxes for everyone by 20% or send in the National Guard into a city. It took me a while to understand why but you kinda have to see where Trump supporters get their worldview. Unfortunately, they use Facebook/Twitter a lot, and have been bombarded for years and years by outrageous fake news. When they try to debate some of this fake news, they are immediately dismissed by the reasonable sort who know fake news is fake news. They see shares/feeds from their friends about mostly the same thing. End result: an unreasonable hatred of the left and democrats. And an acceptance of Trump: just because he ain't a "damn liberal".
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    I don't think fake news is a useful term, it never has been. The media has been flooded with both outright fake news and more importantly missing news for years, when it was supporting the Democrat world view. For instance, just go look at how often you can read the Russia "invaded" Ukraine or Russia "invaded" Crimea. The Russian army is huge and what's left of the Ukrainian army is made of fresh conscripts. If those events had actually happened then the Russian flag would have been waving over buildings in Kiev within 24 hours, there would have been videos of it all over the world. You can't hide an invasion of an entire country, that's not what the word means. Yet these conquered cities are mysteriously missing. What actually happened is a civil war in Ukraine with two opposing sides from the same country who hate each other, one side trying to break away by force. The west supports west Ukraine with materials and training, Russia probably supports east Ukraine/Donbass in a similar way, although the west admitted they were doing it and Russia never did. But let's put that to one side and assume both were at it. That's not an invasion, that is at most a proxy war. And what happened in Crimea was even simpler, they had a vote and voted to join Russia just like they did twice in the 1990's (but were ignored). Western/Ukrainian polling and journalists have visited since and didn't find any evidence that the vote was not representative of what people there actually think. Yet fake news stories that talk of invasion, literally fake as in "reporting on things that never happened", goes largely unremarked, especially by the kinds of people who hate Trump. They usually aren't even aware how thoroughly they've been fooled. If you want an example of how people are manipulated through missing news rather than fake news, the recent Greenwald article on a SEAL Team raid in Yemen and how CNN reported it is a good one. So "fake news" is the kind of thing that both sides can levy at the other, with some justification, but trying to claim one side or another is smarter than the rest is not going to work. People will just tune it out, exactly as you report.
    - cryoshon 10y ago
      >just go look at how often you can read the Russia "invaded" Ukraine or Russia "invaded" Crimea. putting your soldiers onto someone else's turf without permission equals invasion...
      - patrickk 10y ago
        Exactly, there were "rebels" driving around in Russian armoured vehicles, using modern Russian military equipment, just without insignias on their uniforms. This story[1] is one of many from a few years back about poorly-disguised Russian troops who were deployed in Ukraine. Vice News did an amusing piece of reporting where they tracked down a Russian soldier who was deployed in Ukraine based on his social media presence[2]. The idea that Russian troops weren't involved is laughable, obvious propaganda that was aimed mostly at the Russian population, not really meant to fool the rest of the world. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/mar/06/ukraine-gross-violation-russian-troops https://www.theguardian.com/news/defence-and-security-blog/2... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zssIFN2mso https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zssIFN2mso
        zigzigzag 10y ago
        Please re-read my post. I say explicitly that both sides in the civil war were being supported by US/UK and Russia respectively, with soldiers and equipment. However, this does not mean the USA invaded Ukraine, nor did Russia invade Ukraine. Perhaps you guys are all using the word "invasion" to mean something different to what I'm using it to mean, but in my book a country can't quietly invade another. Especially not countries with wildly superior militaries. Invasions are kind of hard to miss. Nobody in Iraq or Afghanistan was in any doubt that their countries had been invaded by the USA.
        cryoshon 10y ago
        > Invasions are kind of hard to miss and nobody missed that the russians invaded ukraine...
    - 10y ago
  - notheguyouthink 10y ago
    > It took me a while to understand why but you kinda have to see where Trump supporters get their worldview. Unfortunately, they use Facebook/Twitter a lot, and have been bombarded for years and years by outrageous fake news. When they try to debate some of this fake news, they are immediately dismissed by the reasonable sort who know fake news is fake news. They see shares/feeds from their friends about mostly the same thing. End result: an unreasonable hatred of the left and democrats. And an acceptance of Trump: just because he ain't a "damn liberal". I don't even think it's the fake news or etc, it's the moral highground/horse that the far left stands on, and is unwilling to debate, talk, communicate. Regardless of all this political shitstorm, i am quite sickened by the thought control that the far left seems so unwilling to yield from. They have so many dismissive weapons in their toolbag of verbal war that make hope for discussion a fickle thing. A lot of people have very unpopular views, either on the edge or over it from what the far left believes, and we all need to be willing to discuss. No ones views should be dismissed. Once we start doing that, a "surprise" voter turnout happens - ala Trump.
  - bitkrieg 10y ago
    The term "fake news" is totally misleading because it conceals political agenda behind it. Yet it is all over the place. Did everybody forgot what propaganda is?
  - VLM 10y ago
    "End result: an unreasonable hatred of the left and democrats." Is it irrational to hate those who find your religion, race, gender, education level, employment, state of residence and political affiliation to be "deplorable"? After all, the Democrats started it. A near perfect consensus of legacy media self admittedly being politically aligned with the Democrat party doesn't mean their propaganda is true and any other political spin is fake news, it just means its dominant in the legacy media, which is rapidly losing influence, leading to people not under single party control gaining leadership positions...
    - pm90 10y ago
      > Is it irrational to hate those who find your religion, race, gender, education level, employment, state of residence and political affiliation to be "deplorable"? After all, the Democrats started it. No they did not "start" anything. And lets not even get into the whole business of who started what. Its true that liberals do find racist xenophobes deplorable. Its true that liberals do find people who try to impose restrictions on the rights of anyone in the community for their reproductive rights, sexual preferences and gender identification to be deplorable. > A near perfect consensus of legacy media self admittedly being politically aligned with the Democrat party doesn't mean their propaganda is true and any other political spin is fake news, it just means its dominant in the legacy media, which is rapidly losing influence, leading to people not under single party control gaining leadership positions... They are NOT aligned with Democratic party. They are aligned with reason and facts and are pretty fearless about reporting on those.
- r_smart 10y ago
  Speaking for myself, I'm mixed on this particular EO. I don't like the restrictions placed on people who were already determined to be legal residents via green cards / visas whatever. Fortunately, I think that's going to get struck down. So my support of this current EO is mixed. When would I not support him? Had he tried to do something permanent, had he tried to go forward with a ban all Muslims approach. Those both seem pretty clearly wrong to me. I find the hyperbole around this EO kind of absurd though. We're talking about two bans of 120 and 90 days respectively, from a list that was generated via a similar ban in 2011 and which doesn't actually specify any religion. In so far as I can tell, due to the 'persecuted religious minority' aspect of the EO, a Sunni in a predominantly Shia nation and vice versa would still qualify. It also lays out being open to reviews on an individual basis. I think it's overall mixed, and probably not the best way to get this done. I also think claims of fascism, literally Hitler and other hyperbole are overblown. It's also not a Muslim ban. Even if he stopped all people from those 7 countries permanently, there's still something like one billion Muslims still eligible to enter the country.
  - cjeane 10y ago
    > We're talking about two bans of 120 and 90 days respectively Proponents say they are temporary measures, so that there is time to 'figure out what is going on'. No matter how you feel about this EO it was implemented in sloppy and unprofessional manner. It was poorly written, Agencies were not notified or instructed on the exact intent, there was no time for review from Legal Council. How am I supposed to extrapolate that this farce will produce better immigration enforcement than the already stringent vetting that was in place? When they have no better alternative I have to predict that these blanket bans get extended for 'safety reasons'. > due to the 'persecuted religious minority' aspect of the EO, a Sunni in a predominantly Shia nation and vice versa would still qualify. It also lays out being open to reviews on an individual basis. This is great conjecture, but it is unclear, at this time, if as implemented a Sunni qualifies for this status. You have frontline DHS agents deciding these case by case reviews without clear orders. I don't believe they will err on the side of possibly getting it wrong. Denying will always be the default. > It's also not a Muslim ban. It's obviously not a muslim ban, but that is who will be disproportionally affected.
mr_spothawk 10y ago
> it's pretty disturbing. It's far worse than the election cycle. My own read on the situation is that a lot of folks have wrapped up their ego/identity in opposition. I'm incredibly happy to see so many people participating & engaging with the government. It reminds me of the satisfying experience of watching the enormous online response to Collateral Damage / CISPA,CISA,etc... / PRISM / and all the rest. We've seen that online protest isn't as effective as we would like. And I'm thrilled to have discussions with my friends in which they express their desire to participate in government in a direct way (trying to become elected, for instance). I think it's a lot of "millennial" participation, too... which makes me wonder how similar this is to the Vietnam protests, I'm to young to know. But yes... it's a nasty spin-cycle, and the news all seems to have a stench of fairness to it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nulldevz 10y ago
Irregardless, alot of people is working to create a gooder place. Alot of, times it's disturbingness are feeding hypobole. I is a Trump supporter alot.
nontrivialkk88 10y ago
No more disturbing than the right doing the same thing ala Fox News for the last... decade plus? Many on the right are convinced Trump just did something with his immigration order to actually protect us, despite jihadists, political science experts, and even members of the Republican party saying otherwise. That it was a dangerous move, even. Nevermind that the largest terror sponsoring state out there right now in Saudi Arabia isn't on the list. This is pandering to the hardcore for easy political gain. If it was a real effort, SA would be on there. But he knows he can't make that work. Both sides are playing the same game. When it's not their team in the WH, the other side is vile and reprehensible and in gross violation of the Constitution! Believing anything that comes from either side is foolish and irresponsible.

throwaway5752 10y ago

And a lot of us on both sides of the former partisan political spectrum are wonder what - if any - boundaries Trump supporters have past which they would not defend the actions of this administration.

pm90 10y ago
There aren't any, and I'm serious about it. Unless Trump does something that is totally and obviously anti-populist, like raise taxes for everyone by 20% or send in the National Guard into a city. It took me a while to understand why but you kinda have to see where Trump supporters get their worldview. Unfortunately, they use Facebook/Twitter a lot, and have been bombarded for years and years by outrageous fake news. When they try to debate some of this fake news, they are immediately dismissed by the reasonable sort who know fake news is fake news. They see shares/feeds from their friends about mostly the same thing. End result: an unreasonable hatred of the left and democrats. And an acceptance of Trump: just because he ain't a "damn liberal".
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  I don't think fake news is a useful term, it never has been. The media has been flooded with both outright fake news and more importantly missing news for years, when it was supporting the Democrat world view. For instance, just go look at how often you can read the Russia "invaded" Ukraine or Russia "invaded" Crimea. The Russian army is huge and what's left of the Ukrainian army is made of fresh conscripts. If those events had actually happened then the Russian flag would have been waving over buildings in Kiev within 24 hours, there would have been videos of it all over the world. You can't hide an invasion of an entire country, that's not what the word means. Yet these conquered cities are mysteriously missing. What actually happened is a civil war in Ukraine with two opposing sides from the same country who hate each other, one side trying to break away by force. The west supports west Ukraine with materials and training, Russia probably supports east Ukraine/Donbass in a similar way, although the west admitted they were doing it and Russia never did. But let's put that to one side and assume both were at it. That's not an invasion, that is at most a proxy war. And what happened in Crimea was even simpler, they had a vote and voted to join Russia just like they did twice in the 1990's (but were ignored). Western/Ukrainian polling and journalists have visited since and didn't find any evidence that the vote was not representative of what people there actually think. Yet fake news stories that talk of invasion, literally fake as in "reporting on things that never happened", goes largely unremarked, especially by the kinds of people who hate Trump. They usually aren't even aware how thoroughly they've been fooled. If you want an example of how people are manipulated through missing news rather than fake news, the recent Greenwald article on a SEAL Team raid in Yemen and how CNN reported it is a good one. So "fake news" is the kind of thing that both sides can levy at the other, with some justification, but trying to claim one side or another is smarter than the rest is not going to work. People will just tune it out, exactly as you report.
  - cryoshon 10y ago
    >just go look at how often you can read the Russia "invaded" Ukraine or Russia "invaded" Crimea. putting your soldiers onto someone else's turf without permission equals invasion...
    - patrickk 10y ago
      Exactly, there were "rebels" driving around in Russian armoured vehicles, using modern Russian military equipment, just without insignias on their uniforms. This story[1] is one of many from a few years back about poorly-disguised Russian troops who were deployed in Ukraine. Vice News did an amusing piece of reporting where they tracked down a Russian soldier who was deployed in Ukraine based on his social media presence[2]. The idea that Russian troops weren't involved is laughable, obvious propaganda that was aimed mostly at the Russian population, not really meant to fool the rest of the world. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/mar/06/ukraine-gross-violation-russian-troops https://www.theguardian.com/news/defence-and-security-blog/2... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zssIFN2mso https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zssIFN2mso
      - zigzigzag 10y ago
        Please re-read my post. I say explicitly that both sides in the civil war were being supported by US/UK and Russia respectively, with soldiers and equipment. However, this does not mean the USA invaded Ukraine, nor did Russia invade Ukraine. Perhaps you guys are all using the word "invasion" to mean something different to what I'm using it to mean, but in my book a country can't quietly invade another. Especially not countries with wildly superior militaries. Invasions are kind of hard to miss. Nobody in Iraq or Afghanistan was in any doubt that their countries had been invaded by the USA.
        cryoshon 10y ago
        > Invasions are kind of hard to miss and nobody missed that the russians invaded ukraine...
  - 10y ago
- notheguyouthink 10y ago
  > It took me a while to understand why but you kinda have to see where Trump supporters get their worldview. Unfortunately, they use Facebook/Twitter a lot, and have been bombarded for years and years by outrageous fake news. When they try to debate some of this fake news, they are immediately dismissed by the reasonable sort who know fake news is fake news. They see shares/feeds from their friends about mostly the same thing. End result: an unreasonable hatred of the left and democrats. And an acceptance of Trump: just because he ain't a "damn liberal". I don't even think it's the fake news or etc, it's the moral highground/horse that the far left stands on, and is unwilling to debate, talk, communicate. Regardless of all this political shitstorm, i am quite sickened by the thought control that the far left seems so unwilling to yield from. They have so many dismissive weapons in their toolbag of verbal war that make hope for discussion a fickle thing. A lot of people have very unpopular views, either on the edge or over it from what the far left believes, and we all need to be willing to discuss. No ones views should be dismissed. Once we start doing that, a "surprise" voter turnout happens - ala Trump.
- bitkrieg 10y ago
  The term "fake news" is totally misleading because it conceals political agenda behind it. Yet it is all over the place. Did everybody forgot what propaganda is?
- VLM 10y ago
  "End result: an unreasonable hatred of the left and democrats." Is it irrational to hate those who find your religion, race, gender, education level, employment, state of residence and political affiliation to be "deplorable"? After all, the Democrats started it. A near perfect consensus of legacy media self admittedly being politically aligned with the Democrat party doesn't mean their propaganda is true and any other political spin is fake news, it just means its dominant in the legacy media, which is rapidly losing influence, leading to people not under single party control gaining leadership positions...
  - pm90 10y ago
    > Is it irrational to hate those who find your religion, race, gender, education level, employment, state of residence and political affiliation to be "deplorable"? After all, the Democrats started it. No they did not "start" anything. And lets not even get into the whole business of who started what. Its true that liberals do find racist xenophobes deplorable. Its true that liberals do find people who try to impose restrictions on the rights of anyone in the community for their reproductive rights, sexual preferences and gender identification to be deplorable. > A near perfect consensus of legacy media self admittedly being politically aligned with the Democrat party doesn't mean their propaganda is true and any other political spin is fake news, it just means its dominant in the legacy media, which is rapidly losing influence, leading to people not under single party control gaining leadership positions... They are NOT aligned with Democratic party. They are aligned with reason and facts and are pretty fearless about reporting on those.
r_smart 10y ago
Speaking for myself, I'm mixed on this particular EO. I don't like the restrictions placed on people who were already determined to be legal residents via green cards / visas whatever. Fortunately, I think that's going to get struck down. So my support of this current EO is mixed. When would I not support him? Had he tried to do something permanent, had he tried to go forward with a ban all Muslims approach. Those both seem pretty clearly wrong to me. I find the hyperbole around this EO kind of absurd though. We're talking about two bans of 120 and 90 days respectively, from a list that was generated via a similar ban in 2011 and which doesn't actually specify any religion. In so far as I can tell, due to the 'persecuted religious minority' aspect of the EO, a Sunni in a predominantly Shia nation and vice versa would still qualify. It also lays out being open to reviews on an individual basis. I think it's overall mixed, and probably not the best way to get this done. I also think claims of fascism, literally Hitler and other hyperbole are overblown. It's also not a Muslim ban. Even if he stopped all people from those 7 countries permanently, there's still something like one billion Muslims still eligible to enter the country.
- cjeane 10y ago
  > We're talking about two bans of 120 and 90 days respectively Proponents say they are temporary measures, so that there is time to 'figure out what is going on'. No matter how you feel about this EO it was implemented in sloppy and unprofessional manner. It was poorly written, Agencies were not notified or instructed on the exact intent, there was no time for review from Legal Council. How am I supposed to extrapolate that this farce will produce better immigration enforcement than the already stringent vetting that was in place? When they have no better alternative I have to predict that these blanket bans get extended for 'safety reasons'. > due to the 'persecuted religious minority' aspect of the EO, a Sunni in a predominantly Shia nation and vice versa would still qualify. It also lays out being open to reviews on an individual basis. This is great conjecture, but it is unclear, at this time, if as implemented a Sunni qualifies for this status. You have frontline DHS agents deciding these case by case reviews without clear orders. I don't believe they will err on the side of possibly getting it wrong. Denying will always be the default. > It's also not a Muslim ban. It's obviously not a muslim ban, but that is who will be disproportionally affected.

mr_spothawk 10y ago

> it's pretty disturbing. It's far worse than the election cycle. My own read on the situation is that a lot of folks have wrapped up their ego/identity in opposition. I'm incredibly happy to see so many people participating & engaging with the government. It reminds me of the satisfying experience of watching the enormous online response to Collateral Damage / CISPA,CISA,etc... / PRISM / and all the rest. We've seen that online protest isn't as effective as we would like. And I'm thrilled to have discussions with my friends in which they express their desire to participate in government in a direct way (trying to become elected, for instance). I think it's a lot of "millennial" participation, too... which makes me wonder how similar this is to the Vietnam protests, I'm to young to know. But yes... it's a nasty spin-cycle, and the news all seems to have a stench of fairness to it.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

nulldevz 10y ago

Irregardless, alot of people is working to create a gooder place. Alot of, times it's disturbingness are feeding hypobole. I is a Trump supporter alot.

nontrivialkk88 10y ago

No more disturbing than the right doing the same thing ala Fox News for the last... decade plus? Many on the right are convinced Trump just did something with his immigration order to actually protect us, despite jihadists, political science experts, and even members of the Republican party saying otherwise. That it was a dangerous move, even. Nevermind that the largest terror sponsoring state out there right now in Saudi Arabia isn't on the list. This is pandering to the hardcore for easy political gain. If it was a real effort, SA would be on there. But he knows he can't make that work. Both sides are playing the same game. When it's not their team in the WH, the other side is vile and reprehensible and in gross violation of the Constitution! Believing anything that comes from either side is foolish and irresponsible.