America's retaliation against Russian hacking.

But just because he overstates things, that doesn't mean there is no truth to any of them.

nimh wrote:

layman wrote:

The rhetoric of the hate-monger is characterized by four things: (1) unsubstantiated demonization, (2) amateurish simplification, (3) hostile intolerance, and (4) fanatical certitude.

This is a good definition. The irony is that you don't recognize it being demonstrated right in front of you, here on A2K, when its purveyors are fellow conservatives. After all, this summarizes the content of most Frugal or Giujohn posts to a T. Or some of your own, for that matter.

I think you are missing the humor, irony and occasional trenchan insights that distinguish Layman here.

What you said is wrong... most of what you say is wrong.

Meanwhile, what I said is that some of his other posts (and most of Giujohn's and Frugal's) meet the criteria he just laid out.

I thought you had my ass on "ignore," eh, Al? Ya back to lyin again, that it?

georgeob1 wrote:

Well the answer lies in the sentence you quoted. Take out the obviously exaggerated and categorical stuff ( "Trump is unfit... ; a pathological liar; interfered with our election: " etc.) and you are left with a very small residue of material that might be worth considering.

Why are you taking out those statements? How do you determine that a statement like "interfered with our election" is obviously exaggerated?

It seems that you pick and choose certain items that you either want to believe or will categorically refuse to believe, and then work your way backwards in order to find a way to dismiss the source. It's been posted here - reported by a multitude of media outlets, and coming from a number of sources - that there is general agreement within the intelligence community that Russia interfered with the election, and, more specifically, did so in order to sway the election towards Trump. Yet when confronted with this, you will either choose to shoot the messenger ("It's the Washington Post, who's going to believe them!?") or simply sidetrack the conversation into incredibly broad, vague generalities ("Presidents are human beings, complex creatures filled with contradictions, perceived virtues that become faults in office and the converse.")

georgeob1 wrote:

Trump speaks in very (sometimes almost absurdly) specific and concrete terms with vivid and specific references ( "build a wall..." ) , and he does so often with apparent inconsistently ( though there is an easily detected central tendency in it). Despite that I believe most of his supporters believe they know what he intends to do far better than they knew what they would get from the more elegantly loquatious Obama. His opponents merely seize on the inconsistencies.

Which merely means that Trump supporters go through his various statements, and then pick and choose which ones they want to believe, and which ones they will dismiss - with a multitude of justifications, ranging from - early in the primaries and election - "He's just rallying his base with extreme positions, he will obviously walk them back after the primaries/after the Republican convention/during the general election/once he's won the election/once he's in office" to "He's a businessman and just establishing a strong negotiating position, he obviously can't let his opponents know what he really wants" to "He's just provoking those liberals and the mainstream press, what he says is not really his opinion" to "He's just giving the masses very specific, colorful illustrations of broader policy proposals - they're obviously not meant to be taken literally!"

In other words, it seems that Trump supporters completely accept the fact that Trump will state something that obviously has to be untrue. They just believe that they're in on the joke, that he may be leading on all those ignorant liberals and media types and Republican opponents, but they know exactly which statements are false and which ones are true. Because he's plainspoken, and rejects political correctness, and tells it like it is, and is just a blue collar guy who's made it, and he's always, always honest with them.

Opinions on what is supposed to be taken literally and what is obviously hyperbole/being a clever businessman/goading liberals might vary from one supporter to the next. With the general agreement that you have to evaluate whatever Trump says based on whether or not it feels right to you, not based on whether or not it's inconsistent with what he's said previously.

YOU are characterized by four things: (1) unsubstantiated demonization, (2) amateurish simplification, (3) hostile intolerance, and (4) fanatical certitude.