You want me to express my liberal views?
- Adult people can **** in all desired versions and switch gender at will
- Race is something that doesn't exist
- All people are equal, classes don't exist in reality
- Religion doesn't matter. Ideally it will fade with time though

Not me. But I do think this:

When two people are arguing about any subject within earshot of listener who knows little about that subject and only hears snippets of the conversation, if that listener is asked to guess which one is correct, he is likely to go against the one who has made what seems like an obvious misstatement.

For instance when Don Lemon said that Trump is trying to start a Civil War it could well have actually gained Trump a few votes among people not paying close attention to the whole picture.

Really?

First, what are you referring to as "obvious misstatement" in this context. Be specific, if you can.

Second, I'd think that in the last, what, several generations, that a psychologist or two might have done some research on this theory. I'm calling BS.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear that the observer could not come to a conclusion based on the other arguments. And by "obvious" I meant something that would seem obvious to the observer even if you thought he was wrong to feel that way. Given that my statement is almost a tautology (unless you thought that extreme statements might actually sway some people the other way. But that is doubtful, especially if your side is in the right.)

The person is going to go with the person who most seems like someone they'd aspire to be (or aspire to be associated with), regardless of any facts.

This is true even if the person is completely unaware of the fact he makes his assessment almost purely based on affiliation. Probably more true in that case, since he won't be able to detect his own social-emotional biases that are driving his choices.

This is extremely unlikely in the context of Presidential politics because every listener knows, or think they know, a fair amount about it. If they care enough to vote, they care enough to watch the news or read a newspaper or follow political twitter.

LOL

and

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

I think we've all bookmarked that play post. Also, those aren't liberal views. How are you guys always so bad at knowing what liberals think or support?
I didn't think BS read books but that he somehow found the most racist ones isn't a shock.

This is patently untrue. It is like saying that most Christians have read the Bible.

FYP

Sklanksy just said that CNN anchors using hyperbole makes people vote for Trump because viewers might

1) Not know anything about Trump on the merits to determine their vote
but
2) Believe that Lemon is wrong about Trump

get the **** out of here with this ****. His theory is internally inconsistent!

That is EXACTLY the same, except for some incorrect implied pretension that people are rational.

I like how every single one of these "Trump voters aren't racist, they are just tired of being called racist" people ends up accidentally admitting that they personally are racist

Every single thread like that here is basically just a slower version of that guy who said "Martin Luther ****" today to reporters before his court case.

The reason I asked for an example was the above exchange. If there is no connect between FlyWf's excessive asterisks and your almost a tautology, I stand confused & corrected... I guess. The answer to you base question is, of course, variations upon this...

Cliffs: the world don't work by facts.

I addressed your argument, not DS's, in the post you are responding to. Your argument in the post I am currently responding to is wrong because someone on our side saying something stupid directly gives ammunition to those on the other side. Every time one of us liberals lets one of our less intelligent members says something silly in public, it gets picked up by Fox News. We used to avoid doing that sort of thing because it is extremely poor strategy.

I addressed DS's argument in another post when I replied to Shame Trolly's response to DS.

When was this Edenian period of American politics? Historians often single out the most cogent representatives of different viewpoints, but that has more to do with simplifying the past into a coherent narrative than because there wasn't also stupid and loud people saying stupid things loudly. Fox News and Breitbart are driven by partisan goals and so consciously seek out and highlight these people among their political opponents. Should Democrats not let stupid people who say silly things in their party? How small exactly should the party be? And who exactly is going to stop them?

This last comment is really important, and always seems to get lost.

The answer is nobody. Nobody is going to stop them. And nobody should stop them... at least not in any kinda democracy. So... nobody is going to stop them, and nobody who upholds democracy should stop them... which means it's going to happen from time to time.

When we scale up to the size of the Donkeys & Elephants, it's going to happen like clockwork. And, as Original Position correctly mentioned, there's that whole Breitbart's wing of the MSM dedicated to making this "news" 24/7.

What to make of this? Well, first, the Librulz are at a structural disadvantage here. Sure, the stupid conservatives spew out orders of magnitude more stupid shiz. But, for reasons, rubbing the conservatives noses in that fact doesn't gain any traction at all. Which brings me to my rambling point...

Why does rubbing the Librulz noses in the fact that stupid Librulz gonna say stupid things even work at all?

And.... This is why you are needed here. My BS was playing pretty well overall.

You aren't on "our" side. You never have been, and you never will be. Go back to ****ing SMP.

Also, and just to remind the SMP crew of how tired this **** is, it's not the Politics regs who say stupid ****.

We say correct ****. You guys insist that we should refrain from being correct, and certainly not be STRIDENTLY correct, in favor of being know-nothing collaborators.

To the extent any of this **** changes people's minds, the Wookie/Dvaut/me style of posting our sincere beliefs about substance DOES THAT.

The SMP house style of incoherent pointless dishonest trolling personal attacks does not.

IF David is right and being hilariously wrong hurts the cause in a context neutral way simply due to incorrectness, you might want to think about what message "I don't think Trump or his voters are racist" sends to eavesdroppers. ****ing Christ.

P.S. Brian remember when they gave your friend a forum that was specifically designed as a garage collection forum for unwanted rulebreaking posts and he chezzed his way into it being a ****ing Nazi hangout? Oh but the yappy dogs did yip ever so much.

lol. lololol.

Don't be sad. Us progressives aren't really too worried about what you do on some backwater subforum.

See what I mean about my honest posts about substance and your pointless and dishonest attempts to score points?