So, should we really try talking to these folks?

Slippery slope. Postpone the elections, and you've got a 'President For Life'. Don't do it!


I don't see how a president can serve more than four years in a term. The constitution specifically states a term is four years.

Or should we now consider the US constitution to be simply advisory?



joanne said:

Slippery slope. Postpone the elections, and you've got a 'President For Life'. Don't do it!

It's not going to happen, but the scary part is that 52% of Republicans would back such a postponement if Trump called for it. Thus the rhetorical question how can we even talk to people like that who would go along with such a proposal. 


The survey team seems to suggest that the answer to the thread title's question, however rhetorical it may be, is yes:

Of course, our survey is only measuring reactions to a hypothetical situation. Were Trump to seriously propose postponing the election, there would be a torrent of opposition, which would most likely include prominent Republicans. Financial markets would presumably react negatively to the potential for political instability. And this is to say nothing of the various legal and constitutional complications that would immediately become clear. Citizens would almost certainly form their opinions amid such tumult, which does not at all resemble the context in which our survey was conducted.


They would need to change the Constitution and a nice chunk of federal law.  Not going to happen.



cramer said:
 
It's not going to happen, but the scary part is that 52% of Republicans would back such a postponement if Trump called for it. Thus the rhetorical question how can we even talk to people like that who would go along with such a proposal. 

Exactly.


DaveSchmidt said:

The survey team seems to suggest that the answer to the thread title's question, however rhetorical it may be, is yes:

Of course, our survey is only measuring reactions to a hypothetical situation. Were Trump to seriously propose postponing the election, there would be a torrent of opposition, which would most likely include prominent Republicans. Financial markets would presumably react negatively to the potential for political instability. And this is to say nothing of the various legal and constitutional complications that would immediately become clear. Citizens would almost certainly form their opinions amid such tumult, which does not at all resemble the context in which our survey was conducted.

And do you do not think that Trump and his enablers would set forth reasons and rationales? What would they be saying on Fox News?



LOST said:

And do you do not think that Trump and his enablers would set forth reasons and rationales? What would they be saying on Fox News?

1. Another yes.

2. Whatever it is, I don't like the idea of ceding the audience. Do you?


er yeah, cause that approach worked so well at stopping Trump in the first place.


DaveSchmidt said:

The survey team seems to suggest that the answer to the thread title's question, however rhetorical it may be, is yes:

Of course, our survey is only measuring reactions to a hypothetical situation. Were Trump to seriously propose postponing the election, there would be a torrent of opposition, which would most likely include prominent Republicans. Financial markets would presumably react negatively to the potential for political instability. And this is to say nothing of the various legal and constitutional complications that would immediately become clear. Citizens would almost certainly form their opinions amid such tumult, which does not at all resemble the context in which our survey was conducted.



there are more ways to win elections than appealing to the fixed-like-concrete minds of dunderheads.


DaveSchmidt said:



LOST said:

And do you do not think that Trump and his enablers would set forth reasons and rationales? What would they be saying on Fox News?

1. Another yes.

2. Whatever it is, I don't like the idea of ceding the audience. Do you?




drummerboy said:

there are more ways to win elections than appealing to the fixed-like-concrete minds of dunderheads.

I enjoyed catching "Inherit the Wind" on TCM the other night. Even though, every time, Henry Drummond loses the case.


you don't get it dude.

The bifurcation of the country based on differing views of reality is a serious problem - merely talking to people one on one is not going to solve it.

Building a substantial majority that can defeat them in elections just might. But don't even think you can get any significant number of voters from the dunderheads. They're lost souls for now.

I mean - do you read the polls? A majority of R's think Trump is more trustworthy than any of the major news outlets. Explain to me me how to "talk" to minds like that. I've asked this question many times here. No one has given me an answer. Because there is none.

This is some serious sh!t.

This is the pre-eminent problem America faces. By far.

Mark my words. And it's only going to get much worse before it (hopefully) gets better.

DaveSchmidt said:



drummerboy said:

there are more ways to win elections than appealing to the fixed-like-concrete minds of dunderheads.

I enjoyed catching "Inherit the Wind" on TCM the other night. Even though, every time, Henry Drummond loses the case.



100% of MOL political hyperspammers don't know what a push poll is.

In any case, if you stopped talking to anyone not a doctrinaire leftist today, how would that differ from yesterday? oh oh



Jackson_Fusion said:

100% of MOL political hyperspammers don't know what a push poll is.

In any case, if you stopped talking to anyone not a doctrinaire leftist today, how would that differ from yesterday? oh oh

If anybody pushed, it was Trump who said that there were 3 million illegal voters which resulted in 47% of Republicans who thought Trump won the popular vote. 



drummerboy said:

Explain to me me how to "talk" to minds like that. I've asked this question many times here. No one has given me an answer. Because there is none.

It's possible there are reasons other than the bulletproof challenges of your questions that prevent others from trying to answer them. If I may extend the film reference, even Henry Drummond tuned out E.K. Hornbeck.



DaveSchmidt said:



drummerboy said:

Explain to me me how to "talk" to minds like that. I've asked this question many times here. No one has given me an answer. Because there is none.

It's possible there are reasons other than the bulletproof challenges of your questions that prevent others from trying to answer them. If I may extend the film reference, even Henry Drummond tuned out E.K. Hornbeck.

I know the film and I know the real life event. (Check my avatar).

The defendant may have been found guilty but the fine was minimal. And I believe Messrs. Scopes and Darrow won the War (Although there are still some die hard holdouts).



Jackson_Fusion said:

100% of MOL political hyperspammers don't know what a push poll is.

In any case, if you stopped talking to anyone not a doctrinaire leftist today, how would that differ from yesterday? oh oh

We talk to you.

It's not a question of "doctrinaire leftists" who, by the way, would never cast a ballot for a candidate of the Democratic (Capitalist) Party. Have you ever met a true "doctrinaire leftist"?

Every election is about turnout. Once the candidates are known almost all voters make a decision as to which they prefer. Then the candidates attempt to sway the few people "in the middle", but most of those are either not really undecided or are paying no attention. Some won't decide until they enter the booth, and some will pick whosever name is first.

So the smart campaign managers will concentrate on motivating those who are likely to favor their candidate, but are tepid in their commitment to vote at all, to actually show up at the Polls.


I talk to people all the time who aren't liberals.  And anyone who knows me IRL knows I'm not confrontational.  My most recent long conversation over drinks with a die-hard NC conservative made me even more convinced that most Trump supporters cannot be convinced to consider the Democratic Party.  There is no sense trying to win over people who a) have a completely different worldview and values from the typical liberal, and b) are operating in a different reality with a different set of facts.

If Democrats want to win elections, they need to get their own voters energized and out to the polls.  And the road to doing that doesn't go through appealing to Trump voters. It means being committed to a set of progressive policies that will help regular working people.


absotively

ml1 said:

I talk to people all the time who aren't liberals.  And anyone who knows me IRL knows I'm not confrontational.  My most recent long conversation over drinks with a die-hard NC conservative made me even more convinced that most Trump supporters cannot be convinced to consider the Democratic Party.  There is no sense trying to win over people who a) have a completely different worldview and values from the typical liberal, and b) are operating in a different reality with a different set of facts.

If Democrats want to win elections, they need to get their own voters energized and out to the polls.  And the road to doing that doesn't go through appealing to Trump voters. It means being committed to a set of progressive policies that will help regular working people.




In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.