Why Trump supporters stand by debunked claim

Forums - Politics Discussion - Why Trump supporters stand by debunked claim

coolbeans said:
deskpro2k3 said:

Here is how voting works folks, for those that don't know.
You have to be registered in order to vote, and in order to register you must be a citizen.

*Posting a video captioning a reporter facepalming*

*Makes a facile analysis worthy of that same reaction*



I don't think you've thought this out. Can you be less vague?

Are you trying to say my statement is not true, and If so how do you vote then? Please explain, I'll give you some time to think it over.

Around the Network
aLkaLiNE said:
Now let's just generalize the rest of his supporters as that exact kind of person please.

Like how Trump supporters lump all Muslims together as terrorists?

StarDoor said:

Unfortunately for you, even the Pew Research Center concedes that Republicans are more informed than Democrats.


Of course, trying to smear conservatives as "uneducated" is especially hypocritical when the least educated demographic, high-school dropouts, vote Democratic by wide margins. Way to insult your own base.

"Informed" and "educated" are two different things. 


I was correct in my "smear" about being uneducated. 

And I like how the metric you use for being "informed" is arbitrary quiz from 2011. I'm sure if I asked the right questions, I could get inverse results. Like how many Republican voters like the Affordable Care Act, but don't like Obamacare. Even though they're the same thing. They only care about the name because they aren't "informed" about anything other than "Obama is forcing you to pay money"

I'd rather go with a study on the aggregate on who's most likely to be educated. From 2016. 

bowserthedog said:

Can you please post a link to where the claim that many non-citizens voted is debunked?  I would find something that proved that to be worth a read.

The people in this video were likely brought on because they were foolish.  They were brought on to make specific claims that they wouldn't be able to do a great job of backing up so that the CNN host could be dumbfounded while also not being in a position to have to provide any real evidence of her own.


Well, for starters there is no evidence that proves millions of people voted illegally. Last Saturday there was a recount in Wisconsin, and nothing was amiss.

deskpro2k3 said:

Trump supporters' claim stuns CNN anchor



This is an amazing clip, you can see the certainty on that Trump support's face. And their source of information is Facebook.

Here is how voting works folks, for those that don't know.
You have to be registered in order to vote, and in order to register you must be a citizen.

I find it more amazing that you are using a news report from a company that fed Clinton debate questions and try to legitimize anything they say as serious

Around the Network
Miguel_Zorro said:

It appeared on an EXIT POLL, not a ballot.

PDF said:

Just want to clearify that it was an exit poll.  Not on an actual votable ballot.  

When I first read your post I was personally shocked to think it could be on a ballot and was glad to find it wasn't.

Right. I'll ammend the post to specify this. The point was that it was a question posed to voters though.

KLAMarine said:

How would you go about it?

It depends on the the purpose of the question. If it was genuinely a question aimed at gauging opinions on a real social problem, I would for starters not begin by generalizing the subject of the supposed problem as "blacks", because as I'm sure you're aware, even among people with the same skin color, many think very differently. And beyond that I would make sure to specify exactly what it is I'm asking, in a way that there can't be a debate about what the question is about. That's a very simple thing to do.
However as a poll taker, I would question how people, whether politicians or other voters, would be aware of the skin color of the people causing this rather unspecified problem.

Soonerman said:

I find it more amazing that you are using a news report from a company that fed Clinton debate questions and try to legitimize anything they say as serious


conspiracy, speculations and such are things I cannot comment on, I mean seriously how do you expect me to reply to something like that without derailing.

I don't see 3 million anywhere I do want to stress this, but I don't see how it is debunked. I've talked to many people who live in California who say that illegals can easily get licenses and they have seen people they knew were illegal vote before. That is anecodotal evidence so I won't say it equals any number reaching 3 million. Obviously by rules they are not suppose to vote, but I can easily believe the numbers can and were inflated in california due to illegal immigration. Wasn't there a video where ICE officials told Trump that illegals were not being deported because of democrats wanting them to vote? 

The burden of proof for 3 million relies on the Trump supporters. However, the reasoning for why there was no voter fraud doesn't convince me at all. So it wasn't debunked. It was never proven in the first place to me so I definately need more evidence regardless. So it's something I hope Trump supporters look into more, but I don't have an opinion beyond that, and I would never say 3 million without evidence.

I voted for Trump. I have very conservative relgious relatives that did not even vote at all. My oldest brother is a militant atheist and this is only the second time he voted for a Republican, he has voted for Nader in the past and a couple Democrats. I believe Trump got less Republican evangelicals that McCain or Romney and less Mormons. Someone also told me southerns overall, but I haven't seen any proof, but I did see him get more % of hispanics and african americans and lower % of evangelicals and mormons...so overall Trump won without the entire Republican Party. Hillary didn't get 50% of the popular vote so even though she got more she was still a minority candidate so over 50% did not want her. Also, almost all racists in my life have been democrats. I live in bucks county, PA and I am mixed racial in a very white liberal area. 

Shadow1980 said:
StarDoor said:

Science denialism is more prevalent and damaging to society among liberals. While the views you have mentioned are ridiculed by the media and education system, the Left is almost entirely unchallenged in the public sphere on their creationist ideology that denies biology, genetics, and evolution. AGW denialism has not been the driving ideology behind the past 50+ years of governance, but impossible "equality" has been, to predictable results.

"Creationist"? I'm gonna assume you're not talking about the notion that the universe is 6000 years old and that all species are "special creations" that don't share a common ancestry, in which case I'm gonna have to ask for elaboration.

Also, science denial is most certainly not more prevalent among liberals. Conservatives are vastly more likely to deny evolution, global warming, geological time, and other parts of science that run contrary to conservative economic, social, and religious beliefs. While some liberals do deny that vaccines, GMOs, and nuclear power are safe, it is a small minority, and they are not statistically more likely to be anti-vax/-GMO/-nuclear than conservatives.

Clear sign you haven't really bothered to research this.  


"The bottom line is that the CDC data makes it very difficult to argue that conservatives and liberals share equal blame in the anti-vaccine war. Anti-vaxxers are clearly more associated with the political Left."

And I don't remember the outdated conservative base in Portland that moved to reject water flourination, one of the greatest health achievements in the 20th century.  



(2-part retrospective blog on Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare's campaign)