The most unreported thread ever. Trump thread 9

[amispartacus]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2847535-Week-3-What-will-this-week-bring-Trump-thread

There are loads of other threads. But MN aren't highlighting them. Why not? I demand to know.

Ah, so EasyD is something to do with sex.

care to share further details so I can express my appreciation of the President in detail when challenged at the US border?

OP, I really like your work on how questions work differently depending how your phrase them.

Also this is fun:

President says all polls are fake.
Poll says people approve of his policy.
President uses poll to justify his policy.

I do love the BBC Fact Checker!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38913709

OP, I really like your work on how questions work differently depending how your phrase them

If you look at the poll I linked to, they were relatively neutral questions.

Polling is a science and an art.

Even the words can be used in such a way as to get the right answer - it's what magicians do and sales people - the brain is fascinating.

(I listen to too much More or Less and R4 programmes on persuasion.

I'm glad you agree with me that my thread is fantastic

www.insightsassociation.org/issues-policies/best-practice/push-polls-deceptive-advocacypersuasion-under-guise-legitimate-polling

Push polls....

"Push poll" calls are usually 30-60 seconds in duration, ask only a few leading or misleading questions and are placed to many thousands of people.

Legitimate research calls generally take at least a few minutes, ask carefully designed questions, collect demographic information and are placed to a small representative sample of a particular segment of the public. In short, "push polls" are designed solely to influence potential voters – sharing information instead of collecting it, and shaping opinion instead of analyzing it.

www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-coretta-scott-king.html

WASHINGTON — Republicans seized her microphone. And gave her a megaphone.

Silenced on the Senate floor for condemning a peer, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, emerged on Wednesday in a coveted role: the avatar of liberal resistance in the age of President Trump.

How to speak Trumpese:

He has a pattern. Generally, if you follow this pattern, you are speaking his dialect:

“I [insert any lie], and [insert another lie], have [insert self-praise]. Then [insert lie] love to [insert sexual derogatory profanity] because [insert self-praise] [insert lie], I will [insert racial insult] and will [insert something unconstitutional]. I alone can [insert three continuous lies and one more self-praise], you [insert praise to only his base of supporters, insulting and inciting hatred toward the rest of America]. This is [insert conspiracy theory]. They [insert decree to limit freedom of the press]. I am [insert a run of 6 compliments about himself]. Sad. So sad. And Putin is a great man.”

Well it all gets rather circular when Justanotherlurker is here sunnyhills, so I find it hard to keep track.

(You know, avoiding answering questions but continually turning them round into demands other people answer his/hers, that sort of stuff.)

Lweji - yes we should all declare our motives for posting on this thread and justify them .

My motive for this post is to say that I thought anotherlurkers post about requesting passwords and how the interest was overhyped was interesting and helpful ( to me ) to read . And I thought waaay too many posts were directed in reply ,nit picking and adding nothing .

anotherlurker wasn't derailing the thread singlehandled .

I'm not sure what your motive for posting -

Or communication isn't really what they're here for...

Your not wrong.

Despite there extensive work credentials.
grin

was .

destiny

And I know you voted for me. You're great people. The best. Not like the press. You know what I'm talking about....

It's sales patter. Persuading. Emphasising you agree with him. Making them 'him'. Creating other.

He is selling himself as President.

And I thought waaay too many posts were directed in reply ,nit picking and adding nothing

Ok - so if someone says they think something is not true, then I think it's reasonable to go to the source.

Then - if someone then says that you are going on about it, you can either
a) Ignore that comment
b) Explain why you did it

What happens then is that if you ignore that comment, said poster then says you are ignoring what they said

If you explain why you did it, person then comments and deliberately misinterprets your comments.

Derailing 101

And now - we are talking about that.

It's a very hard situation to handle - you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

But I personally think that if someone thinks something isn't true, they can say it - and then any evidence to say it's true can be shown.

and how the interest was overhyped

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what was said?

A poster posted a report that the US might be asking for passwords.
Someone said that might not be true.
I did some research, clarified it was about the countries on the list and it was spoken at the commitee hearing.
Therefore the story was true.

No over hyping. No outrage. Just pure FACTS about a story.

But then lurker claimed I was outraged. lurker then shifted the boundaries and discussed non - news.

It's classic derailing.

Farage has tweeted that Sessions will be a 'great and fair' AG

Says it all really...

ami I've made my point and will desist now so that this thread can get back to talking about Trump.

So the Bowling Green Massacre did happen...in 1643!

mic.com/articles/167786/the-bowling-green-massacre-did-happen-in-1643-white-settlers-slaughtered-110-natives#.mWDDFuHTv

And I thought waaay too many posts were directed in reply ,nit picking and adding nothing ."

I largely agree with you - although not that the replies added nothing at all.

Of course lurker was decidely part of the waaay too many replies and nitpicking. And I've noticed that when s/he turns up, the conversation regularly just turns into nitpicking and posts about whether or not a poster actually said X.

I think it's perfectly possible to make any factual points s/he might wish to, without the conversation becoming derailed into a repetitive circle. And without introducing spurious rules to clog the conversation, eg "You have to prove to me you are posting in a balanced manner."

Or indeed "We should all declare our motives for posting on this thread and justify them".

Of course it's quite possible for posters not to bother trying to respond to everything lurker or any other poster says, and the thread to just move on.

Farage is a twat. And my motive for posting that, should you wonder, is that I think Farage is a twat and want to express that opinion loudly.

(Sorry, ami, I know that talking about derailing can itself become... a derailment.)

Don't feed the troll!

Also, on the balance issue. At no point has anyone on this thread ever claimed or indicated that it gives equal wieght to the pro-trump view. In fact I think the thread titles have consistently suggested that the posters on this thread share an anti-trump sentiment. I don't see the problem with that and why we should be expected to change that.

that there actually was a real Bowling Green Massacre.

So the Bowling Green Massacre did happen...in 1643!

And CNN didn't cover it?!

It's classic derailing.

Yes. And it's easy to get sucked into it.

BTW, consistently poor spelling is often encountered in troll posts.

Anyway... moving on...

Thank you for that article above about push-polling, ami. I found that helpful.

Lweji hahaha