A Complete Psychological Analysis of Trump's Support

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you think anyone was going to go hungry if they didn't vote for Donald Trump? Do you think anyone else actually thought that?

It was an example of how that works. Desperation makes people do desperate things. And, once the jobs issue, things like food on the table and a topic over their head, yeah some people probably did feel Trump sad their best option for ensuring those two very basic needs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is just demonization masquerading as psychology.
Wrapping it in a veneer of psychojargon does not make it cromulent.
It lacks cogent analysis & evidence.

The article itself not really (and, indeed, some guys do want to watch the world burn). But the usage of the article, that's seeing a different usage altogether.

 

[Revoltingest]

The article itself not really (and, indeed, some guys do want to watch the world burn). But the usage of the article, that's seeing a different usage altogether.

He's trying to characterize a large & diverse group of people with
this faux psychology. To say that some unnamed innumerable
unidentifiable people "want to watch the world burn" is invention
pretending to be meaningful fact.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

unnamed innumerable
unidentifiable people

That's a mandatory protection that all studies require (of this step is not ensure the IRB cannot and will not approve a study). And it's not innumerable. And numbers are tracked and logged.

 

[PureX]

This is just demonization masquerading as psychology.
Wrapping it in a veneer of psychojargon does not make it cromulent.
It lacks cogent analysis & evidence.

All you gotta do is open your eyes. The right is rife with this sort of gleeful humiliation of the "others". Limbaugh spews it all day long. So do a half dozen "commentators" on Fox. This desire to verbally eviscerate the "other" in public is a very big part of modern American "conservatism". If you can't see that you really, REALLY, need to get your eyes checked!

 

[Revoltingest]

All you gotta do is open your eyes.

Ahah!
There's the problem....if I just open my eyes I'll see everything as you do.
Nah. You believe that you have The Truth, & that any who disagree are blind.
There's a name for that.....narsissification or something.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All you gotta do is open your eyes. The right is rife with this sort of gleeful humiliation of the "others". Limbaugh spews it all day long. So do a half dozen "commentators" on Fox. This desire to verbally eviscerate the "other" in public is a very big part of modern America "conservatism". If you can't see that you really, REALLY, need to get your eyes checked!

And liberals have their "cancel culture," by its really a highly toxic, very poisonous corrosive acid to our freedoms and liberties, and often is anti-learning, anti-understanding, and anti-knowledge. PC is something liberals must hold eachother accountable for. But will they? I doubt it. The thought of confrontation and opposing viewpoints is a known "trigger" of theirs.

 

[Maximus]

She is not one of "you guys".
Instead of characterizing her as such, I recommend listening to her.
Her post has merit.

I do not need you to tell me how to read her posts, but thanks. She comes across as an anti-religious troll. Anyway, she was the one who used that wording, originally.

Instead of us vs. them I would suggest that it would be better if we see each other as brothers and sisters. Her bigotry and nationalism is repellent.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do not need you to tell me how to read her posts, but thanks. She comes across as an anti-religious troll. Anyway, she was the one who used that wording, originally.

She is a provocateur, & sometimes taunts with hyperbole & histrionics.

Instead of us vs. them I would suggest that it would be better if we see each other as brothers and sisters. Her bigotry and nationalism is repellent.

I've never thought of her as nationalistic.
She seemed almost as unpatriotic as I am.
I'll watch out for that.

 

[PureX]

And liberals have their "cancel culture," by its really a highly toxic, very poisonous corrosive acid to our freedoms and liberties, and often is anti-learning, anti-understanding, and anti-knowledge. PC is something liberals must hold eachother accountable for. But will they? I doubt it. The thought of confrontation and opposing viewpoints is a known "trigger" of theirs.

So what did you imagine this comment contributes to the thread? Did you imagine that it somehow negates those observations being made in the Psychology Today article? Did you imagine that we should now ignore those observations because the writer focused on Trump supporters and not on all humanity, or on all political factions, or on liberal democrats, too? What, exactly, is the point of changing the focus of the discussion to a subject that has not been offered, here, for consideration and discussion if not to divert attention away from some issues that the U.S. really needs to address? And why would you want to do that?

If you want to dig up an essay on the psychological motives of Hillary Clinton supporters, and start an "alternative" thread, be my guest!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you want to dig up an essay on the psychological motives of Hillary Clinton supporters, a

Did I mention anything about Hillary supporters? Are you also unable to let go of her?
Liberals do have their own nasty sides, and it's been showing through lately. Including "in the media" were PC lunacy is dismissed as changing times, not problematic, and not a threat to free speech.

 

[Shaul]

What a load of claptrap.

Gee I wonder how the article’s author would diagnose this guy,
Florida man charged after driving into GOP voter registration tent

 

[Shad]

Applies to the other side in different ways. Nothing is the article is solid. Yawn. Armchair physiology as the patient is a creation of the author's mind , nothing more.

 

[PureX]

Did I mention anything about Hillary supporters? Are you also unable to let go of her?
Liberals do have their own nasty sides, and it's been showing through lately. Including "in the media" were PC lunacy is dismissed as changing times, not problematic, and not a threat to free speech.

Again, how do you imagine that this comment contributes to the subject at hand?

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, how do you imagine that this comment contributes to the subject at hand?

Since she isn't yet here this more, I'll wade in.
When someone presents a poorly reasoned & evidenced hit piece
on political opponents, it compels the learned poster to not just
refute it, but also to address the motives behind it. Thus, her
posts are indeed germane to the thread.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

narsissification or something.

I think they call it a dog. Or something.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So what did you imagine this comment contributes to the thread?

It's the way you present "the Right," as of the Left is not without problems and concern. Dems and Reps both have what basically amounts to propaganda machines. The Right, we find, has those who would promote religious freedom at the cost of gutting everything else. The Left, tragically, ironically, and wrongly, has a number of those who would gut everything if it is percieved to upset someone. Or, more often, upset them as PC libs are known for getting offended on the behalf of others. And, a pie-in-the-face to PC libs for overall being a very white group and not well thought of by those they claim to be standing up for.
And, another point, you seem to still not ha e realized Revoltingest is not the average stereotype of a right winger, and his choices in where he gets information from is definitely more varied and diverse than the average American.

 

[PureX]

It's the way you present "the Right," as of the Left is not without problems and concern.

I said nothing at all about the left not having problems or concerns. And this isn't about "the right", per se, it's about Trump supporters. Not everyone who considers themselves conservative or "right"-leaning support Trump.

Dems and Reps both have what basically amounts to propaganda machines.

Again, this has nothing whatever to do with the subject of the thread, which is the (mysterious) psychology of Trump supporters.

And, another point, you seem to still not ha e realized Revoltingest is not the average stereotype of a right winger, and his choices in where he gets information from is definitely more varied and diverse than the average American.

Actually, he is. A lot of people who support Trump are doing so because they believe it benefits them, economically. And they excuse themselves for this moral self-centeredness by envisioning the world as a "dog-eat-dog" environment where the big dogs get to eat the little dogs, (the Trumpian world of winners and losers) and everyone has to fend for themselves at the expense of everyone else. So, voting for a pig for president is just a natural, practical decision. Not a moral one. And the negative consequences of it for others are just 'part of life'. It's the #1 motive on the essay's list.