I don’t hear any of that outside the prominent ones. The smaller local ones are dead set on voting for Trump in my neck of the woods. But we have the nutters like Matt Shea constantly siring the pot and North Idaho seems like a powder keg waiting to go off. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone doesn’t try another Ruby Ridge type standoff in the next 5 years.
Okay? You were claiming all Republicans will still vote for him. That’s demonstrably not true. If big name Republicans aren’t going to vote for him, why are you assuming all other Republicans will?
Because I talk to Republicans, like with my mouth and listen with my ears. I see the roadside Trump support. I see people hanging banners on freeway overpasses. I’m just being realistic because I don’t think conservative voters really care about what the Republican Elites are doing if those people aren’t MAGA morons.
It is perfectly understandable why many people fall victim to the luring illusory strength of anecdotal evidence. It is easy to confuse correlation with causation. Illusions of causality and control are very powerful personal experiences that can trick many into believing a false reality. Illusions of causality also lie at the heart of pseudoscience.
If I may project a little, I think the commenter is pointing to language that’s been cropping up essentially calling big name republicans traitors for endorsing Kamala. While you’re more than allowed to interpret what they said literally, I read it has intentionally a bit hyperbolic to make the point that a huge portion of the Republican Party will literally blindly follow him, even if the party leaders are starting to flake.
Just remember, rewording this statement:
If big name Republicans aren’t going to vote for him, why are you assuming all other Republicans will?
To the version that would exemplify your interpretation:
If big name Republicans are going to vote for him, why are you assuming all other Republicans will?
Still creates an equally bold, and hyperbolic claim. Sometimes people use words like “all” and don’t really mean every last person. I blame the English language, not the people taking words literally, for misunderstandings like this.
Just remember, especially with politics, people often hype up language a bit, it makes statements carry more oomph, and can help keep supporters excited for whatever movement they are supporting.
Plenty of prominent Republicans are already turning against him.
The problem with all these “prominent” Republicans is I think they’re all liars. I think every last one will still vote for him come election day.
If he wins that will end the careers of those coming out against him. There is no reason for them to do so if they are going to vote for him.
The only one saying it seemed to be people whose careers pretty much are over.
Given that Trump throws you out when you stop kissing his ass for even a second…
(X) Doubt
I don’t hear any of that outside the prominent ones. The smaller local ones are dead set on voting for Trump in my neck of the woods. But we have the nutters like Matt Shea constantly siring the pot and North Idaho seems like a powder keg waiting to go off. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone doesn’t try another Ruby Ridge type standoff in the next 5 years.
Okay? You were claiming all Republicans will still vote for him. That’s demonstrably not true. If big name Republicans aren’t going to vote for him, why are you assuming all other Republicans will?
Because I talk to Republicans, like with my mouth and listen with my ears. I see the roadside Trump support. I see people hanging banners on freeway overpasses. I’m just being realistic because I don’t think conservative voters really care about what the Republican Elites are doing if those people aren’t MAGA morons.
That is completely anecdotal.
That is a weak perspective.
Let me share something with you https://wikipedia.org/wiki/All_politics_is_local
Let me share something with you in return: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/writing-integrity/202011/the-plural-anecdote-is-misinformation
Did you even read that? What part aside from the use of your keywords do you want me to take from this?
All of it.
This part, for example
You are falling victim to that very thing.
If I may project a little, I think the commenter is pointing to language that’s been cropping up essentially calling big name republicans traitors for endorsing Kamala. While you’re more than allowed to interpret what they said literally, I read it has intentionally a bit hyperbolic to make the point that a huge portion of the Republican Party will literally blindly follow him, even if the party leaders are starting to flake.
Just remember, rewording this statement:
To the version that would exemplify your interpretation:
Still creates an equally bold, and hyperbolic claim. Sometimes people use words like “all” and don’t really mean every last person. I blame the English language, not the people taking words literally, for misunderstandings like this.
Just remember, especially with politics, people often hype up language a bit, it makes statements carry more oomph, and can help keep supporters excited for whatever movement they are supporting.