Hillary Clinton calls for "Formal Deprogramming" of Trump supporters

[ThatRobGuy]

That, plus the minor issue of him actively campaigning for the next presidential election.

But yeah, ignore that, let's find some way, any way, to pretend that Democrats are at fault for the GOP's radicalization problem.

They were still starting to rally behind DeSantis more and more even after Trump launched his bid.

The base started to rally more and more behind him the more the left attacked him and kept him in the 24-hour news cycle.

If we rewind to 2021, DeSantis was something of a "rising star" in the party.

The right becoming more and more receptive to a more "radical message" can absolutely be the result of the left moving further left on some specific issues. For perspective, when Obama was running "Let's keep marriage the way it is, but civil unions are okay...oh, and I inhaled when I smoked pot in college" was the left-hand boundary of the Overton Window. Today, that would represent a center-right position by 2023 standards.

You look at the pattern of who the right was rallying around before Trump.

George W Bush
John McCain
Mitt Romney
(each more "vanilla" than the last)

Then out of the blue, they get behind Trump without any outside stimuli?

 

[KCfromNC]

They were still starting to rally behind DeSantis more and more even after Trump launched his bid.

It seemed to be going so-so for him until the first GOP debate. I'm sure that's the Democrat's fault as well.

The right becoming more and more receptive to a more "radical message" can absolutely be the result of the left moving further left on some specific issues. For perspective, when Obama was running "Let's keep marriage the way it is, but civil unions are okay...oh, and I inhaled when I smoked pot in college" was the left-hand boundary of the Overton Window. Today, that would represent a center-right position by 2023 standards.

I can't help but feel that this is more projection of a personal issue than it is some sort of general theme that drove Trump voters. After all, remember he pretended to like the LGBT community in his 2016 bid.

You look at the pattern of who the right was rallying around before Trump.

George W Bush
John McCain
Mitt Romney
(each more "vanilla" than the last)

The Tea Party says hi. Looking at just one candidate from each year ignores the underlying radicalization of the party.

Then out of the blue, they get behind Trump without any outside stimuli?

Sure, why not? He appealed to the baser instincts of a group which weren't traditionally voters and it was enough to barely get the guy elected.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yeah what's your opinion regarding what Clinton said?

My opinion is that what she said has been blown way out of proportion, both by far right infotainment sources as well as posts here. Those include out of context quoting all the way to outright fabrication to try and rile up far-right believers.

None of it has any substance, as can be seen by the many attempts in this thread to avoid substantiating any of the wild accusations and conspiracy theories posted. But it seems to have had the desired effect for a few news cycles - reinforcing "democrats bad!" among the believers and taking some heat off of the GOP's leading candidate's legal issues.

So with that out of the way, should I give up on my hope that you'll actually answer any of my posts?

 

[Ceallaigh]

My opinion is that what she said has been blown way out of proportion, both by far right infotainment sources as well as posts here. Those include out of context quoting all the way to outright fabrication to try and rile up far-right believers.

None of it has any substance, as can be seen by the many attempts in this thread to avoid substantiating any of the wild accusations and conspiracy theories posted. But it seems to have had the desired effect for a few news cycles - reinforcing "democrats bad!" among the believers and taking some heat off of the GOP's leading candidate's legal issues.

Thanks for sharing that.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

When was that? Who was that? Who is "you people"?

I doubt anything of the sort occurred involving figures in the Democratic Party.

Actually, they did. I would consider the overall tone of their response to January 6 and the BLM riots. The difference was night and day. I don't have the stomach to dig up examples at this time, but you'll see it if you know what to look for.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

So you're saying democrats just march in lockstep and can't be blamed, while Republicans are the ones who think independently?

I’ve never seen a “so you’re saying” post accurately restate what the other person was saying. Ever. It’s always an uncharitable reinterpretation to introduce a straw man.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I’ve never seen a “so you’re saying” post accurately restate what the other person was saying. Ever. It’s always an uncharitable reinterpretation to introduce a straw man.

Perhaps that's what it sounded like to him.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Perhaps that's what it sounded like to him.

Maybe. Is that what it sounded like to you?

 

[Ceallaigh]

Maybe. Is that what it sounded like to you?

It sounded to me like the usual democrats aren't culpable for anything they do and republicans are always to blame no matter what. And I think that's what Aldebaran was expressing more or less.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It sounded to me like the usual democrats aren't culpable for anything they do and republicans are always to blame no matter what. And I think that's what Aldebaran was expressing more or less.

Republicans have a majority and their extreme minority joined up with Democrats to vote him out. It’s no surprise Democrats wanted him out, but fringe Republicans made it happen.

So you're saying democrats just march in lockstep and can't be blamed, while Republicans are the ones who think independently?

Show me where you see comana saying anything close to “the democrats just march in lockstep and can’t be blamed while the republicans are the ones who think independently.”

How did you come to this interpretation from their exact words in the quote?

 

[Ceallaigh]

Show me where you see comana saying anything close to “the democrats just march in lockstep and can’t be blamed while the republicans are the ones who think independently.”

You need to ask the poster that question.

How did you come to this interpretation from their exact words in the quote?

I gave my assessment already. I'm not going to go along with being grilled. Let's get back on topic.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

You need to ask the poster that question.

I gave my assessment already. I'm not going to go along with being grilled. Let's get back on topic.

I did reply to them. You butted in to comment so I redirected my query to you.

It sounded to me like the usual democrats aren't culpable for anything they do and republicans are always to blame no matter what. And I think that's what Aldebaran was expressing more or less.

I’d like to know how both you and @Aldebaran came to that conclusion from anything comana has said. You can just ignore me if you don’t like my questions or where they lead.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I did reply to them. You butted in to comment

This is a public mass conversation. There's no such thing as butting in.

so I redirected my query to you.

And I answered it.

I’d like to know how both you and @Aldebaran came to that conclusion from anything comana has said. You can just ignore me if you don’t like my questions or where they lead.

You already got it. Now you're badgering. Give it a rest.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

This is a public mass conversation. There's no such thing as butting in.

And I answered it.

You already got it. Now you're badgering. Give it a rest.

The report button is right there if you believe I’m being unfair or pestering you or breaking any rules. I’m just trying to understand where some of you get these wild reinterpretations of what posters are saying when the person’s words are right there for everyone to read. Now you want to avoid that point.

Why is that?

 

[Ceallaigh]

The report button is right there if you believe I’m being unfair or pestering you or breaking any rules. I’m just trying to understand where some of you get these wild reinterpretations of what posters are saying when the person’s words are right there for everyone to read. Now you want to avoid that point.

Why is that?

Topic please.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Topic please.

I think the topic has been done to death at this point. There’s at least two threads on her comment and neither of them are going anywhere constructive.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I think the topic has been done to death at this point. There’s at least two threads on her comment and neither of them are going anywhere constructive.

Nether is this derail.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Nether is this derail.

Really? I replied to something a moderator said in the thread. Was @Aldebaran also derailing when they mentioned the House Dems being in lockstep with the GOP while the Republicans think for themselves?

Maybe you should stop with the derail.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Really? I replied to something a moderator said in the thread. Was @Aldebaran also derailing when they mentioned the House Dems being in lockstep with the GOP while the Republicans think for themselves?

Maybe you should stop with the derail.

No you didn't. You critiqued his post and accused him of ulterior motives, instead of actually addressing what he said. You've been totally off topic and ad hominem the entire time. This thread is not about the people who are posting to it.

 

[Pommer]

So do you agree or disagree with Cinton regarding formal deprogramming?

Did she frame this “solution” as a question?
if so, this is a rhetorical style known as hyperbole, which is not normally taken at face value, but (in this present case) seen as a “framing-device” to point out similarities between a political cult-of-personality and a religious cult.

But please, enjoy being outraged over something that was said by a washed-up has-been of a politician.