Interesting conversation, to be lost in the great threadapalooza of 2020

[BugI02]

Well. Maybe we could start with you getting right the thing I'm actually saying because you haven't said it yet. I'm not going to assert a motive for why that is. At most I can only suspect that you don't understand what I'm saying or why I'm saying it. I'm trying to be as straightforward as I can be. I'd appreciate some reciprocity.

You said, "You are skeptical that Trump will win in November and that a silent majority will provide that winning margin."

That does not represent my thinking. I don't know if Trump will win in November. I have my doubts, depending on which way the wind blows. Earlier in the year I thought he'd win. Now after covid and protests I'm more doubtful. But he could win. I hope he does win. I don't think he's the right person to bring us out of this culture war. But at least voting for him isn't just handing it over to the bat **** crazy left. So I think the wind has a bit more to do with it than you apparently do.

So I'll try again to explain what I'm saying so that maybe you can take a stab at saying what I'm saying in away that I'd agree with. You have what I think is an unsubstantiated confidence that he'll win. Kinda like a faith. And it's been said by more than one of you that the silent majority, which by the way, are all just like you, but silent, will bring about Trump's glorious victory. Well, I have my doubts. Especially that you have this silent army of Trumpers who will descend on the polls in November.

I think it's reasonable to believe there's an apolitical class of people who don't really care about politics and mostly just want to live their lives. I suppose if you'd like to call them silent, okay. And if such a group exists, maybe current events have encroached on their lives enough that they'll trudge out to the polls and make their preferences known. But to assume that they're like-minded with you is presumptuous. To claim it with the confidence you assert, without substantiation, is what I'm calling into question. At most there may be enough allies across the spectrum who don't want the world the radical left proposes. MAYBE there are enough sane people to hold their noses. That's a very long step away from the silent majority you all seem to believe in.

[So, remind me again why the accepted meaning of skeptical doesn't apply to you or why it should transform you into a dervish of dithering?]

Anyway, I'm still trying to figure out why you guys are going ape**** about it. jamil said there's no silent majority that will save us! He's dashing our hopes! He's...He's...CRITICAL!

Seriously. Why do you guys care so ****ing much that I'm skeptical about the thing you're so confident in? You guys accuse me of encouraging people to stay home, and so on? Jeez. WTF? I don't think this silent majority thing is all you think it is. So the **** what? How does that destroy your world? Why attack it so hard? I'd really appreciate an explanation. That or if you can't handle skepticism, maybe you should just put me on ignore because whether I support something or am skeptical of it, I'm gonna say it.

IMO you overstate how dispassionate your critical examination is. I certainly would not be surprised by schadenfreude, and given my posting history a good case can be made that I deserve it (although I would have expected Alpo to be the messenger). I have twice now asked you, given we are talking about future events, what you would consider evidence favoring the existence of a silent majority (by which formulation I mean sufficient people who quietly favor Trump to push him to a majority vote tally, not that the number of such people themselves constitute a majority) so that in the fine old INGO tradition that I have become quite familiar with I can narrow my search to finding anything that can be bent toward proving what you assume is my point. Kind of like what happens when one finally gives in to the badgers demanding "Well, what would it take for you to repudiate Trump"

 

[BugI02]

Some of us, alas, have a life outside of INGO. We may only be on once or twice a day for variable intervals or ( ) not on at all. It's only been since yesterday around 1630, a bit soon for a missing persons report

 

[KLB]

Some of us, alas, have a life outside of INGO. We may only be on once or twice a day for variable intervals or ( ) not on at all. It's only been since yesterday around 1630, a bit soon for a missing persons report

LOL. That wasn't directed at you specifically. It was just at the 17 hours without a post in the thread.

 

[two70]

Hold on. Defeatist? I'm talking about what we decide to commit to belief. I see no evidence that there is a silent majority of people who will come to the polls and vote for Trump. That's not to say that can't happen. There's just no reason at this point to believe that this will happen. I'm mostly commenting to the people who are so confident without cause. I'm not in despair, but if I were, I don't see that as a valid reason to believe or not believe anything.

And actually I'm quite curious why of all the reasons I might be skeptical of this grand majority you guys believe in, the only possible reasons you can see is to excuse myself, or encourage people to do nothing. That's absurd. Why would THAT be the logical conclusion of, "I don't think there's a silent majority". I'm actually astonished at this. And you are not the only person to say or insinuate this. I mean, WTF? Are you guys projecting? How is that something anyone would naturally conclude?

I'm writing these things on the pages of INGO because I suspect you guys are wrong about this silent majority. It's more about the standards we use for what we commit to belief. That doesn't mean I'm not going to go out and vote, and it doesn't mean I think you shouldn't bother to go out and vote. It's quite the opposite. I doubt there is a calvary of two70's out there, but for the fact that they don't want to show themselves until the election. So that means that everyone who believes the bat**** crazies should not have the power of public office, you ***damn sure you better vote.

It's possible though, that there is a large enough number of people who see what's going on and they want to stop it before it's too late, and maybe they think that it's not wise to go with the party of bat **** crazy right now, it's possible that enough people might vote R. I'm not at all confident in that. It's not something I've committed to belief. I'm just hopeful.

Before I want to commit such things to my belief, I'd like some facts to substantiate it. I'm saying guard your belief. That doesn't mean don't vote. Please do vote. I plan to. That doesn't mean you should despair. But if you think what I'm saying is despair or discouraging, I'm sorry. Facts don't care about your feelings.

There's a whole lot of words there and yet I still see little to explain why it is so important to you that people not believe in a silent majority. You may well be correct that it doesn't exist but what is so wrong with people expressing a little faith in their fellow citizens?

Now, I wasn't intending to cast aspersions though I can see how I ended up doing exactly that. I was simply trying to understand the motivation, not for believing that there wasn't a silent majority but for being so adamant that others not believe in it.

Personally, I've seen enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that a silent majority is a real possibility not to mention I've seen the same ole song and dance of push polling and hype from the media more than enough to be dubious of the narrative. I wasn't surprised at all to learn that Hillary had similar lead in the polls back in 2016 as Biden does now. I also won't be surprised to see the margins in those polls tighten as November approaches. To me the biggest threat to a Trump re-election is a decrease in motivation in his voters... the Dems and media seem to work pretty hard to provide motivation on a daily basis. Hell, my own parents, who are not politically aware and haven't voted in close to 30 years, are talking about registering just to vote for Trump, largely due to the way the media treated him over the pandemic and the way Democrats have been behaving both during the pandemic and the rioting/looting.

 

[bwframe]

You have a compounding silent majority thing, beyond Trump.

You couldn't dare vote just on skin color (as a lot of folks did for the eight years prior to Trump.) That said, our black president was THE most devisive president in our lifetimes. One could actually tie a lot of the current militant race based anarchy to their formative years during the Obama presidency.

You don't have to be a wizard to think that the likelihood of America electing anyone of color again in our lifetimes would be slim. Obama sold us all a bill of goods, as likely will the next elected politician of color, by virtue of his example.

But of course, we cannot say this aloud. That's why it's called the Silent Majority.

 

[jamil]

IMO you overstate how dispassionate your critical examination is. I certainly would not be surprised by schadenfreude, and given my posting history a good case can be made that I deserve it (although I would have expected Alpo to be the messenger). I have twice now asked you, given we are talking about future events, what you would consider evidence favoring the existence of a silent majority (by which formulation I mean sufficient people who quietly favor Trump to push him to a majority vote tally, not that the number of such people themselves constitute a majority) so that in the fine old INGO tradition that I have become quite familiar with I can narrow my search to finding anything that can be bent toward proving what you assume is my point. Kind of like what happens when one finally gives in to the badgers demanding "Well, what would it take for you to repudiate Trump"

What would it take? The way you framed it seems to indicate that you understand it’s an impossible question. The whole reason you guys have to call it a silent majority is because there ISN’T evidence of widespread support for Trump. If there were, you wouldn’t be calling them “silent”. I mean. Doesn’t that reasoning seem at least a little circular to you? So no. It’s not the reasonable question to answer. Obviously the evidence I would need is more people expressing support for Trump, but then they wouldn’t be silent. That’s why it’s an impossible question.

Instead, you’re the one with the confidence in the unseen, unheard, unknown. It’s on you to answer why you believe it. The reason for my doubt is no evidence it exists, so why should I believe it does? What’s your reason?

 

[Alpo]

This is where it started:

The silent majority is an unspecified large group of people in a country or group who do not express their opinions publicly.[1] The term was popularized by U.S. President Richard Nixon in a televised address on November 3, 1969, in which he said, "And so tonight—to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans—I ask for your support." [2][3] In this usage it referred to those Americans who did not join in the large demonstrations against the Vietnam War at the time, who did not join in the counterculture, and who did not participate in public discourse. Nixon, along with many others, saw this group of Middle Americans as being overshadowed in the media by the more vocal minority.

I don't think forum like INGO disqualify anyone from the silent majority. Perhaps Tweeting and political Facebook posts might. But not INGO.

The silent majority isn't only Trump supporters. You don't get to pat yourself on the back.

 

[jamil]

This is where it started:



I don't think forum like INGO disqualify anyone from the silent majority. Perhaps Tweeting and political Facebook posts might. But not INGO.

The silent majority isn't only Trump supporters. You don't get to pat yourself on the back.

Apparently the silent majority came out for AOC in her race. Bigly.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Apparently the silent majority came out for AOC in her race. Bigly.

Yeah, but almost nobody came out at all in her race. Almost everyone was silent. Voter apathy got them... her.

 

[jamil]

Yeah, but almost nobody came out at all in her race. Almost everyone was silent. Voter apathy got them... her.

Well, it was a joke. Obviously it’s not a majority.

Seriously, I don’t know what happened there. There were a lot of reports that the challenger was putting up a big fight. Maybe her supporters thought she had it in the bag. Or I’m not taking potential cheating off the table. It is far left Democrats we’re talking about.

But no one ever turns out in that district. The woman who ran against her won even fewer votes than Crowley or whatever his name was. It could be a legit representation of the district. Be interesting to poll them to see if they support the violent protests. I suspect many do.