Donald Trump

[SebastianBlue]

"Do you believe in Jesus Christ's divinity?"

"Yes."

"So you believe the bible is the truth?"

"Yes."

"ALL of the Bible, right? Because if some parts aren't true, maybe the the Gospels aren't and therefore Jesus might not have done all the things that were said of him."

"Right."

"In fact, the Bible must be literal truth, right?"

"Yes."

"OK. I have one word for you: dinosaurs."

"Oh fuck."

It's all a matter of connecting yourself to a belief structure and tying yourself to the mast in the face of evidence supporting contrary positions. It's the logic process those use to support Trump no matter what. They cannot accept contrary evidence that might shift their beliefs because their beliefs are all they have to guide them through this life and if they're shaken they have no roadmap, and therefore, no hope.

It’s also important to remember how the dynamics of a cult (which is what MAGAism is) are designed to entrap members. When someone joins—either slowly or all at once—they are not only indoctrinated to reject all evidence contrary to the beliefs of the cult, they are pressured (or outright instructed) to cut off ties with all others that are not true believers (members of the cult). This shrinks their community, and subsequently their perception of their own general value and purpose, to only the collective of zealots and manipulative (and most often abusive and exploitive) leaders.

Often times they are even pressured or instructed to either give all of their wealth to the cult (again, usually to the leaders) or just give it away. This further isolates them and makes them much more (or entirely) dependent on the cult community for survival, much less prosperity. It also tends to strengthen the hold the cult leadership has on the common members and acolytes, as the leadership often use the wealth to maintain systems of containment and control.

Once more, cults often establish and demonstrate dire (sometimes violent) consequences for leaving, whatever your reason. They make it clear that not only will you never be allowed to return, but they will make you pay for your desertion long after your departure. In some ways, you will always be a member, whether you like it or not. Till death do you part.

This has the very intentional consequence of making disavowing the cult’s teachings and beliefs not just a matter of changing one’s mind—with all of the psychological difficulty that comes with that process—but also losing the only source of social and financial support you now have, and likely making your life outside of the cult miserable (or unlikely).

Of course, for some within MAGA it is not quite as extreme as joining Heaven’s Gate or Jonestown. But some of these elements are very much present, particularly the radicalisation, shifting indoctrination, social isolation, psychological and financial exploitation (sometimes to an extreme, as we are seeing now), deserter punishment, and definitely leader worship.

For most still in the movement at this point, they have gone all in, committing their mind, body, soul, and worldly possessions. For many, the idea of renouncing their beliefs comes with very real, very undesirable consequences. Their entire sense of self has become entrenched the MAGA world.

It really isn’t that far off of the development of the Nazi social order.

So in addition to what you have said, which is a very real hinderance to efforts to breakdown the MAGA cult and free the minds of the cultists, you also have the structural constraints limiting success.

TL;DR
MAGA is a cult and members experience many of the constraints and dangers inherent to cult membership (and degenerate, megalomaniacal leaders). The cult’s structure and systems of control make it that much harder to help them break free of the ideology.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

No, I mean, the quote/words -- "we believe in dinosaurs" -- makes no sense.

I'm not sure what you mean then - in a post above, I replied to you citing a documentary with the exact same title showing that evangelicals (at least some of them) not only believe in dinosaurs, but that they have built a theme park based on this very belief.

The theme park is - of course - scientifically inaccurate. Yet it illustrates how facile evangelicals can be - incorporating any evidence that refutes their beliefs - into core tenants in support of their doctrine.

 

[threespires]

It's not meant to be religious -- it's meant to draw parallels between belief structures and how easy is is to cling to illogic or contrary evidence to defend them.

Church is a community of like-minded, connected humans. My wife is Unitarian; I was raised Roman Catholic. In both our case the religious communities in which we grew up were extremely important to us, and the relationships we forged and good we accomplished under those banners meant far more to both of us than the dogma associated with either.

Indeed I assumed that and in fairness religions are the most obvious belief systems to draw a parallel with for the point you wanted to make.

I think I posted a response because as people in the UK become less and less familiar with religion, there's an increasingly strong narrative, fueled by a slightly morbid fascination over here with the extremes of Christian evangelicalism in the US, that Christianity is a religion of dementedly certain, highly literal, creationist fundamentalists which isn't really the case at least in large chunks of the world. So more a general observation that your post prompted rather than a direct response to your point.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I'm not sure what you mean then - in a post above, I replied to you citing a documentary with the exact same title showing that evangelicals (at least some of them) not only believe in dinosaurs, but that they have built a theme park based on this very belief.

The theme park is - of course - scientifically inaccurate. Yet it illustrates how facile evangelicals can be - incorporating any evidence that refutes their beliefs - into core tenants in support of their doctrine.

You can't "believe in" or "not believe in" dinosaurs. They existed.

So when they say "we believe in dinosaurs" it's nonsensical . . . unless they are attempting to differentiate themselves from other nonsensicals who say "we don't believe in dinosaurs." Either way, either phrase is nonsensical.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

You can't "believe in" or "not believe in" dinosaurs. They existed.

So when they say "we believe in dinosaurs" it's nonsensical . . . unless they are attempting to differentiate themselves from other nonsensicals who say "we don't believe in dinosaurs." Either way, either phrase is nonsensical.

All I can say is that you should watch the documentary I referenced.

The "we believe in dinosaurs" caption - is a rebuke chiefly against science. It's a statement that, "yes, dinosaurs existed" - see the bones - but yes, too, "we believe that they existed" - in spite of what scientists claim about how long ago this was... and (this is they key thing)...

in spite of the fact that dinosaurs existed, it's clear to us, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Thus, dinosaurs - and humans - existed contemporaneously.

"We believe in dinosaurs" is a rebuke mostly against science - it's a statement of belief in the contemporaneous existence of man and dinosaur. That this statement is at variance with previous statements from the same church that dinosaurs did not exist is no matter.

Jurassic Park is too popular and dinosaurs are too beloved - so let's incorporate dinosaurs into our belief system.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

My initial reaction to this problem for Republicans is that it is mostly down to partisan gerrymandering - districts are divided up such that most are extremely pro-Republican or pro-Democrat. This artificial division of a state into partisan voting districts results in the nomination and election into office of candidates with extreme positions in accord with the prevailing view of their respective districts.

And yet, State-wide elections, free of the gerrymandering problem - seem to elect polarizing figures too. The US Senate is a much more reasonable governing body than is the House - and yet, the Senate too is subject to Trump's influence.
===
IMO, the way in which elections are run in the USA, is in need of a massive revamp. Mathematical models exist which help ensure that the "best," "most liked" candidate will win election - and these models result in compromise, non-radical, middle-of-the-road officials.

Unfortunately, there's almost no chance that such models will be adapted in the USA - as such change often requires a 2/3rd's vote of Congress and/or of the States.

The problem is that “best” and “most liked” were never part of the equation and, in some respects, were the antithesis of what the FF were seeking!

They were concerned about the tyranny of the majority at the time of the Constitution being written, because they didn’t want whomever Virginia (which was very populous in comparison to the fledgling states) chose to become the new “King of America.” It’s why we have 2 senators from each state, even though one might represent millions of voters and one might represent thousands, and an Electoral College for President rather than a straight popular vote.

In some “winner take all” states, one vote can decide the entire state’s electors, which can be enough to decide who the President might be. In a popular vote, Montana and Wyoming would be afterthoughts to states like CA, TX, FL, NY. As it is, their EC votes certainly carry far more weight, but not individual votes.

I believe that if we want to maintain the EC, then all states should have proportional representation, whereby each candidate gets their share of the EC votes based on their state’s popular vote. If a state had 21 EC votes and it was a very close race, then the EC votes would be split 11-10. In a state that had 20 EC votes, every 5% of the vote would get 1 EC vote and if the “popular vote loser” got over their 45% threshold, then that candidate would get 9 EC votes. However, if the difference between the candidates’ votes was less than the 5% vote threshold (52.4% to 47.6%), they would each get 10 EC votes.

The country is basically purple, as evidenced by how close the voting is at each election, but that is not reflected on an EC map, because it paints STATES as one color when they are clearly not, and it disenfranchises millions of voters.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

You can't "believe in" or "not believe in" dinosaurs. They existed.

So when they say "we believe in dinosaurs" it's nonsensical . . . unless they are attempting to differentiate themselves from other nonsensicals who say "we don't believe in dinosaurs." Either way, either phrase is nonsensical.

Sadly, even the ones who believe in dinosaurs also believe white men ride around on them!

Can’t fix stupid, no matter how hard you try to hide it in your ideological buffoonery!

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

The problem is that “best” and “most liked” were never part of the equation and, in some respects, were the antithesis of what the FF were seeking!

They were concerned about the tyranny of the majority at the time of the Constitution being written, because they didn’t want whomever Virginia (which was very populous in comparison to the fledgling states) chose to become the new “King of America.” It’s why we have 2 senators from each state, even though one might represent millions of voters and one might represent thousands, and an Electoral College for President rather than a straight popular vote.

In some “winner take all” states, one vote can decide the entire state’s electors, which can be enough to decide who the President might be. In a popular vote, Montana and Wyoming would be afterthoughts to states like CA, TX, FL, NY. As it is, their EC votes certainly carry far more weight, but not individual votes.

I believe that if we want to maintain the EC, then all states should have proportional representation, whereby each candidate gets their share of the EC votes based on their state’s popular vote. If a state had 21 EC votes and it was a very close race, then the EC votes would be split 11-10. In a state that had 20 EC votes, every 5% of the vote would get 1 EC vote and if the “popular vote loser” got over their 45% threshold, then that candidate would get 9 EC votes. However, if the difference between the candidates’ votes was less than the 5% vote threshold (52.4% to 47.6%), they would each get 10 EC votes.

The country is basically purple, as evidenced by how close the voting is at each election, but that is not reflected on an EC map, because it paints STATES as one color when they are clearly not, and it disenfranchises millions of voters.

Another problem is that the math behind voting fairness did not exist when the constitution was drafted. The idea that a better outcome would result by running multiple candidates at once and having each voter rank them in order of preference simply did not occur.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Sadly, even the ones who believe in dinosaurs also believe white men ride around on them!

Can’t fix stupid, no matter how hard you try to hide it in your ideological buffoonery!

I'd like to believe our ancestors did. I've seen the Flintstones. I'd love to have a record player with a bird's beak as the needle.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Another problem is that the math behind voting fairness did not exist when the constitution was drafted. The idea that a better outcome would result by running multiple candidates at once and having each voter rank them in order of preference simply did not occur.

Maybe that system hadn’t been used before, but neither had the one they thought up.

Almost everything was a compromise to try to keep the fragile union together, even though the individual states, and even individuals in the room, had very disparate views. However, they came up with a system AND they came up with a system to change everything they did as modernity approached. The problem was they thought future politicians would be the “gentlemen” they were, who would hold country up before party and individual power. They were sadly mistaken, thus their “remedies” became almost impossible to attain.

Hell, the USA can’t pass an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution! They tried, almost got the required number of states, but couldn’t. Time ran out, THEN a few holdout states agreed, but some states that had agreed were now politically changed and thus wouldn’t allow a time extension.

Accordingly, and thanks in large part to Phyllis Schafly, WOMEN are not legally equal to men in America!!! More Christian, wife chained to the sink, nonsense from a white, upper class Christian boob!

Much like abortion was never a political football and was “settled law,” the Christian Nationalists, through their allies on SCOTUS, have sent America back to the dark days of back alley abortions and severe penalties for anyone who dare even help someone seeking one! Need a driver to the clinic? Sorry, I’d go to jail as aiding and abetting a murder!!

The Handmaid’s Tale isn’t just a TV show in America!

Change is needed, just not the change they’re seeking!