Hillary Clinton calls for "Formal Deprogramming" of Trump supporters

[ozso]

Since no one is pushing or proposing, your retort is nononsensical.

So you keep claiming that's it's all nonsensical conspiracy theory fiction.

 

[essentialsaltes]

She was quite obviously being perfectly serious.

If you watch the clip, Amanpour certainly smiles right at the talk of deprogramming and I think Hillary does as well.

(and no, it's not a 'we're going to round up our political enemies and reeducate them in camps' smile)

 

[ozso]

If you watch the clip, Amanpour certainly smiles right at the talk of deprogramming and I think Hillary does as well.

(and no, it's not a 'we're going to round up our political enemies and reeducate them in camps' smile)

It's the thought that counts.

 

[ozso]

Who is claiming that she proposed a law?

Perhaps no one, but a mandate would have to be put in place to make it happen. My guess is Hillary didn't think that far ahead. She's more into deleting than reprogramming after all.

 

[DaisyDay]

If they are such a small minority such as those who stormed the capital, and all those people are in jail, then who is hillary talking about?

Who did she say she was talking about? I would start there.

All those people are not in jail. Many would have loved to have been there but couldn’t make it. Others have already gotten out. Some weren’t caught.

All those people sending death threats to those vilified and doxxed by Donald and his useful media shills.

 

[Aldebaran]

If the roles were reversed, and a group of 8 democrats were trying to oust say, Nancy Pelosi, as speaker, would you expect or want Republicans to vote to keep her in?

Irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with what I would expect.

 

[Aldebaran]

Thank you for proving my point. Neither Secretary Clinton nor anyone in this thread has said anything about "brainwashing, propagandizing, re-educating, etc. at an institute, facility, health services center or anything like that. You're literally saying, "those people want to get me", not only does no one want to get you, no one wants to do to you what You're claiming "they" want to do you.

All your scenarios exist only in your imagination.

Then where do you believe this "formal deprogramming" would take place, if not in any of the places I named?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Then where do you believe this "formal deprogramming" would take place, if not in any of the places I named?

In typical actual cases of cult deprogramming, family members lightly kidnap the subject, who is taken to a hotel, family home or other location where deprogrammers get to work.

Not uncommonly, deprogrammers are charged with criminal behavior and/or sued.

 

[Aldebaran]

In typical actual cases of cult deprogramming, family members lightly kidnap the subject, who is taken to a hotel, family home or other location where deprogrammers get to work.

Not uncommonly, deprogrammers are charged with criminal behavior and/or sued.

Uh huh. So you believe hillary was advocating for family members to do it, and that's her definition of "formal".
Looks like you're also advocating for hillary to be charged with criminal behavior and/or sued.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

But what if brainwashing is done by free

In typical actual cases of cult deprogramming, family members lightly kidnap the subject, who is taken to a hotel, family home or other location where deprogrammers get to work.

Not uncommonly, deprogrammers are charged with criminal behavior and/or sued.

And deprogramming doesn't work very well. Deprogramming - Wikipedia.

Whether religious or political cultish behavior, I am not sure there is an answer.

but maybe

The Strategic Interactive Approach (SIA)​

The Strategic Interactive Approach (SIA), encourages a positive, warm relationship between cult members and their families while helping to raise essential questions for cult members to consider. The SIA is noncoercive and empowers individuals by giving them the tools they need to detect and remove undue influence from their minds. It requires a respectful, curious, warm approach to asking questions, with the aim of empowering the person to reflect and think. Waiting for a response, sometimes for many minutes, for the person to think is another key part of the process. The goal is not to offer facts and persuade the person that they are wrong. The goal is to help reality-test.

Beyond Cult "Deprogramming"

The new goal is to empower reality-testing.

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[Green Sun]

Irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with what I would expect.

It does matter. If your view isn't consistent, and depends solely on the party involved, it seems significantly hypocritical to criticize the Dems for voting McCarthy out if you would be OK with Republicans voting Pelosi out.

I let your silence speak for you then, I think you just made it clear what your thoughts truly are through refusing to answer.

If you want to clarify, and actually answer the question, feel free.

 

[Aldebaran]

It does matter. If your view isn't consistent, and depends solely on the party involved, it seems significantly hypocritical to criticize the Dems for voting McCarthy out if you would be OK with Republicans voting Pelosi out.

I let your silence speak for you then, I think you just made it clear what your thoughts truly are through refusing to answer.

If you want to clarify, and actually answer the question, feel free.

The question itself is a whataboutism, and therefore isn't worthy of the time to address it.
Have a nice day!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Uh huh. So you believe hillary was advocating for family members to do it, and that's her definition of "formal".

No, private deprogammers do it, when they are hired by family members. That's the only kind of deprogramming I know of, so it must be the formal kind.

Informal deprogramming would be like having a conversation with a friend or loved one to try to lead them out of the rabbit hole.

Looks like you're also advocating for hillary to be charged with criminal behavior and/or sued.

Why, has she kidnapped someone?

 

[Green Sun]

The question itself is a whataboutism, and therefore isn't worthy of the time to address it.
Have a nice day!

I believe it is highly relevant. You have a post where you assigned the blame to McCarthy being removed from Speaker on Democrats, despite his own party being the ones who started the effort to remove him.

I wanted to know if you would likewise blame Republicans if a small group of Dems started a motion to vote out Nancy Pelosi. Would you say Republicans were responsible if they all voted to remove her as well? Would you want them to remove her? Your approach to this question is important in how we understand your view on the McCarthy situation. It lets us know how much of it is tied into your political party preferences, and how much is tied into your idea of what bipartisanship should be.

From what you have said so far, and your political views expressed, I believe that you would want Republicans to vote out Pelosi, rather than keep her in.

If you want to state otherwise, feel free. I will accept your answer once provided.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Another view from a former cultist. Try to ignore the Daily Kossiness and focus on the quotes direct from conservative Scott Morefield, a writer for Town Hall, Daily Caller, blaze, breitbart, federalist...

Why does it seem like nothing can break the support the die-hards have for Donald Trump? Why does it seem like their blind spot is so large that he could seemingly say or do anything and they would still have his back? From the outside looking in it seems irrational, but it’s deeper than that.

Many if not most of us lost friends and even family due to our support for Trump, especially early on. We knew the consequences, but we saw the upside so we did it anyway. We tended to excuse his obnoxious personality and even actions we didn’t like because we knew the good outweighed the bad, especially when he was doing things we liked as president.

Over the years that becomes ingrained, and what was once a pragmatic alliance, for many became a cult of personality. They became ‘onlyTrumpers’, even when the bad started outweighing the good and he became a liability.

Now, when they are asked to abandon the person they spent so many years supporting, there is an irrational knee-jerk desire to reject that request and ignore any evidence supporting it. Toss in the unjust [sic] prosecutions, and the desire becomes even stronger. A perfect encapsulation is people in this camp posting the cartoon frog holding the sign that says, “Don’t care, still voting Trump.” To them, Trump can never do any wrong.

There is a guilt, but there is also a reluctance to even broach the possibility that something we have put our blood, sweat and tears into over the last several years may have been a waste. It’s human nature. I know. I felt it myself as I considered changing my support. Nobody wants to think they have wasted time and effort for nothing. Nobody wants to think they put their personal relationships at risk for nothing.


This accords well with what I've been saying for a long time -- that Trump's loss in 2020, and the reaction of his die-hard supporters to it, is an example of what's described in When Prophecy Fails.

Festinger stated that five conditions must be present if someone is to become a more fervent believer after a failure or disconfirmation:

• A belief must be held with deep conviction and it must have some relevance to action, that is, to what the believer does or how he or she behaves.
• The person holding the belief must have committed himself to it; that is, for the sake of his belief, he must have taken some important action that is difficult to undo. In general, the more important such actions are, and the more difficult they are to undo, the greater is the individual's commitment to the belief.
• The belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief.
• Such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief.
• The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence that has been specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, the belief may be maintained and the believers may attempt to proselytize or persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Everyone who is a capitalist, anti-abortion, pro-family, pro-border wall, and pro-freedom of speech would be included as a 'far-right extremist."
That is about half the population, if not more.
It is not so bad that she said such a thing, it is that virtually nobody on the left condemned the statement. In fact, some supported it just as they have here.

 

[ozso]

Everyone who is a capitalist, anti-abortion, pro-family, pro-border wall, and pro-freedom of speech would be included as a 'far-right extremist."
That is about half the population, if not more.
It is not so bad that she said such a thing, it is that virtually nobody on the left condemned the statement. In fact, some supported it just as they have here.

Supported it or glossed over it.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Note to Hillary: Do you have any idea what you sound like to those of us old enough to remember what happened in the USSR and East Germany when the Berlin Wall was still standing?

And don't give us any lectures about January 6 - while not even a year earlier you people were making myriad excuses for those who participated in the BLM riots in our cities.

 

[essentialsaltes]

while not even a year earlier you people were making myriad excuses for those who participated in the BLM riots in our cities.

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

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

 

[A2SG]

It's obvious that no one would willingly submit to being "deprogrmed".

No worries there, because NO ONE IS CREATING ANY SUCH LAW!!!!

It's the thought that counts.

No one's thinking about actually creating any such law either.

-- A2SG, there is a difference between "Maybe there needs to be" and actually creating a law.....