How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

[Lloyd]

It seems like you're just explaining why conspiracy theories are so pervasive.

[dneal]

Yes, I've said that several times now and that it's what should be addressed; only to receive a horse laugh and comment along the lines of "they're delusional".

Here's a little secret though. The Trump-haters (some of which we see on this forum) are every bit as delusional, deranged, irrational and overly emotional as the Trump-lovers. Neither side thinks they are. Both sides think the other is.

[Lloyd]

Why people believe in conspiracy theories...
https://youtu.be/JpInOs1Fyno

[dneal]

Why people believe in conspiracy theories...
https://youtu.be/JpInOs1Fyno

Fine, but again you make the assumption that the 2020 election is just a conspiracy theory. There's evidence that it's not, and claiming otherwise won't make it go away.

I don't know how many times I have to type this until someone will actually read it.

Covid originating in a lab was immediately labeled a "conspiracy theory". Turns out it's not. Also turns out we don't know for sure, but that's why you evaluate all the evidence dispassionately and let the truth fall out where it may. Also turns out we were warned about this sort of thing.

In an interesting parallel, "election fraud" was immediately labeled a "conspiracy theory", by Democrats and left-leaning media who I'm sure have no conflict of interest in holding that view and espousing that narrative. "Trump lost 60 court cases!". "The absolutely non-partisan Democrat Michigan Secretary of State promises it was fair!!!". "The absolutely not partisan, elected to 10 year terms, 5-2 Democrat majority Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Trump lost fair and square!!"

Perhaps there is evidence to discredit that hypothesis. Perhaps there is an alternative hypothesis. Perhaps it is just a conspiracy theory. Perhaps it isn't. Who knows for sure? You certainly will never know unless you objectively evaluate the evidence. For the umpteenth time, shouting it down just fuels the conspiracy (if it is one).

And we have threads like this where people can't for the life of them understand Republican skepticism.

[Lloyd]

Georgia's County was overseen by a staunch Republican.... How'd those recounts go?
If you can't disapprove it, then believe the infotainment source that supports your hopes & dreams...despite all the elected officials (many appointed under Trump) stating that the incidents of inconsistencies not amounting to enough to alter the election.

[dneal]

And you continue to cherry pick. Color me surprised.

It might not have occurred to you that there are Republicans that are anti-Trump (see: Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Jeff Flake, etc...). There is a large portion of the GOP that is quite happy to return to the status-quo. The fact that Raffensperger is with the GOP is not proof of anything. The data isn't affected.

Lastly, you seem in insinuate that I'm a Trump supporter (from the "hopes and dreams" bit). I'm not.

It occurred to me that the "birther conspiracy theory" is actually a fair example of how to deal with this sort of thing. The argument and accusations went back and forth for years. It was Trump (ironically) who got Obama to "put up", so to speak. He produced a birth certificate, and we didn't hear any more about it. Amazing how that works.

[Lloyd]

Actually, there were plenty that still didn't believe Obama was a US citizen by birth.
I don't think you're a Trumper; I never did. You just try to make people question what can't be proven but that they firmly believe in. That's why I got my degree in Math (the provable) and am agnostic ...

[dneal]

Yep, and there were the few die-hards that said some nonsense about "short-form" vs "long-form"; but the majority "birthers" dismissed them and were satisfied (if not happy). I suspect the same would be the case with the election. A few will never be convinced, but that's not who needs addressed. The many that still doubt, are.

Thanks for the fair assessment. I do just try to make people question what they firmly believe in. Whether or not it can or can't be proven depends on the topic (and there's the whole problem of statistics and probabilities somewhere in the middle...).

[Lloyd]

The really aren't any indisputable "facts" regarding the election nor COVID.
Since might "enjoy" this https://youtu.be/4lg6cZmfpeM

[Chuck Naill]

Yep, and there were the few die-hards that said some nonsense about "short-form" vs "long-form"; but the majority "birthers" dismissed them and were satisfied (if not happy). I suspect the same would be the case with the election. A few will never be convinced, but that's not who needs addressed. The many that still doubt, are.

Thanks for the fair assessment. I do just try to make people question what they firmly believe in. Whether or not it can or can't be proven depends on the topic (and there's the whole problem of statistics and probabilities somewhere in the middle...).

And we try to allow you the opportunity to question what you believe or appear to believe. I tend to change my mind with more evidence. Do you?

[Lloyd]

The birthers didn't acknowledge Obama's citizenship. That became unimportant to their God (Trump) and he threw other distractions and distortions into their food dishes.

[dneal]

The really aren't any indisputable "facts" regarding the election nor COVID.
Since might "enjoy" this https://youtu.be/4lg6cZmfpeM

There are plenty of disputable facts. I see both side's evidence. Neither is conclusive to me.

And we try to allow you the opportunity to question what you believe or appear to believe. I tend to change my mind with more evidence. Do you?

For the first, I don't need permission; but thanks for the sentiment.

For the second, I do too but one side won't allow it to be admitted - so to speak. I'm still unpersuaded either way but work under the assumption is was a fair election.

[Lloyd]

I don't see any conclusive facts, only my interpretation of what I chose to feed myself.

[Chuck Naill]

There are plenty of disputable facts. I see both side's evidence. Neither is conclusive to me.

And we try to allow you the opportunity to question what you believe or appear to believe. I tend to change my mind with more evidence. Do you?

For the first, I don't need permission; but thanks for the sentiment.

For the second, I do too but one side won't allow it to be admitted - so to speak. I'm still unpersuaded either way but work under the assumption is was a fair election.

So, what that one side do or say that would satisfy you?

[Chuck Naill]

I think one way a conspiracy theory can develop is to say to yourself that since a possibility can exist, it does in fact exist.

If you want to think there is a possibility the election was stolen, it was indeed possibly stolen.

Even if the top of the ballot was wrong and the bottom correct, there exists a possibility that somehow , somewhere, it could have happened.

I believe thinking this way reminds me of a quote of a person always studying, but never coming to the truth. Never landing out of fear of having to take a position or of thinking of yourself as wise for that independence. It’s a type of “whatabouttuisism” or thinking you’re right, but you don’t know why. It’s just a feeling. It’s also cynical and can cause one to always throw up another topic rather than dealing with what’s obvious.

[Chuck Naill]

Let’s consider the 1776 Commission released yesterday. How would you respond if you’re familiar.

Did slavery occur and does it taint the American history? Did it really occur? Should it be discussed? How would you teach American history regarding slavery if you think it really occurred?

How did slavery effect the African American experience in a nation where liberty was an institution?

For me, If some topics just cannot be discussed because they are too painful, nothing ever gets accomplished snd we just run the same risk of endless repetition

[dneal]

We keep running around in circles.

The particulars in some states were novel. They were anomalous. That creates curiosity, if nothing else. What is the explanation for these novel anomalies? This sort of thing happens all the time, in all sorts of aspects of human existence. Why was this the coldest day ever recorded? Why was there a big flash of light and a boom above a big Russian city?

In the case of the contentious election, some point out all the things on sites like hereistheevidence.com. Some point out that the results feed to the news outlets show vote tallies decreasing. Some point out that there are many voters with a January 1st, 1900 birthday. Ok, that's curious. It's not a far leap to even say it's suspicious. Perhaps there is a perfectly reasonable explanation. Perhaps there isn't. It needs an explanation satisfactory to the majority of reasonably minded people who are suspicious.

When one side attempts to silence any questioning, through media, public ridicule, "fact checking" and labeling social media posts; it also causes one to wonder why the vehemency? What is wrong with finding an explanation, and why is one side so dead-set on not examining it? If one is prone to suspicion, this only exacerbates it. I'm prone to skepticism. I'm skeptical of the claims that absolutely nothing wrong happened. I'm also skeptical of claims by the "experts" that assert many wrong things happened. Skepticism, and "what do I not know", helps insulate against faulty conclusions, Dunning Kruger effect, etc...

Acknowledging that a possibility can exist doesn't necessarily lead to conspiracy theories. I can acknowledge that there is a possibility of life on other planets. I can acknowledge that there is a possibility that there is a deity. I don't see enough evidence to suppose, or act as if, it is the case (or even probable). When I see the evidence of the "election was stolen" side, I can acknowledge that there is quite a bit and it seems plausible. I can also acknowledge that it is not convincing (i.e.: doesn't overcome my skepticism).

My concern is not my own curiosity. My concern is 70 million Americans that are not sure, or do not believe the election was legitimate. My concern is the divisiveness in the nation. My concern is what happens if we continue down these partisan paths. The question is the title of this thread. Sure, some will never be convinced just as some still believe Obama wasn't an American citizen. Those are the fringe. Trying to persuade them is as silly as trying to lump all Trump supporters as fringe thinkers - yet we see two threads that continue to assert that very thing.

The longer this goes on, the harder it is going to be to convince them and the more volatile the situation becomes. The left is talking about the Trump supporters need "deprogrammed", and the WashPost columnist Eugene Robinson lumps 70 million people into a "cult". That's crazy talk too, btw. This won't just go away. It needs to be addressed. Increasingly it is the case that whoever addresses the "election was stolen" assertions will need some serious credibility. A small nonpartisan commission could perhaps be sufficient at this point.

I don't have any confidence that will happen. One side will continue to shout the election was stolen, and the other will shout that they're delusional. Nothing good will come of that.

[dneal]

Let’s consider the 1776 Commission released yesterday. How would you respond if you’re familiar.

Did slavery occur and does it taint the American history? Did it really occur? Should it be discussed? How would you teach American history regarding slavery if you think it really occurred?

How did slavery effect the African American experience in a nation where liberty was an institution?

For me, If some topics just cannot be discussed because they are too painful, nothing ever gets accomplished snd we just run the same risk of endless repetition

That's an entirely separate topic that although I would be happy to discuss, needs to be raised in a separate thread.

[Fermata]

This is a genuine question with no agenda or judgement.

I am reading a news article on significant images of the past administration and saw this pic of Melania wearing a jacket with a message whilst visiting a migrant camp.



Without fear of contradiction could anyone tell me what message you think she sought to give out by wearing this jacket and why would she do so when visiting a migrant camp, I don't know but I assume she visited the camp on compassionate grounds.

I am English, I have no axe to grind, I am just curious about the objective.

Thank you.

This message

[Lloyd]

What makes you so certain that these ballot irregularities weren't investigated already during the recounts?