Here & Now’s Meghna Chakrabarti’s interview with Dianna Ploss, After Trump’s Victory, Lifelong Democrat Reflects On Why She Supported Him, is a stunning example of either;
a) an orchestrated punking of Here & Now meant to launch a false narrative or,
b) how truly easily some voters can be and were duped by Trump and his machine.
Let that opening sink in:
“Massachusetts resident Dianna Ploss was a lifelong Democrat. But during the campaign, she quit her job so she could volunteer full time for Donald Trump.”
A lifelong Democrat? Really? Wonder if anyone at Here & Now confirmed that with voter registration records, or did they just take Ms. Ploss’s word on that?
And, who does what she claims to have done? Who quits their job to volunteer for anyone or anything full time, and how can you do that if you aren’t already wealthy and privileged?
Here’s a fact about Ms. Ploss she conveniently failed to reveal in the interview.
She was a district-level delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention.
Could she really have quit her job to volunteer to do that? Sure. But, why wouldn’t she reveal such an important detail. This isn’t phone-banking and door-knocking. This is being a delegate.
Her credibility is called into ever more serious question as the interview progresses. It culminates in what some will hear as a heart-wrenching tale of financial struggle while caring for her aging father.
I find it all very dubious.
Listen for yourself. The thought processes she uses to explain herself and her rationale, the story she tells, the circumstances of her life, and the consequences of her decisions are all, to my ear, meant to tug at everyone’s heartstrings as a way to normalize Trump and his ideas.
My advice is not to fall for it.
She and whomever she’s worked with (for some reason I can’t get Kellyanne Conway’s face out of my head here) want you to come away thinking,
“Aw, gee. I guess I can see why she’d turn from Democrat to Republican and vote for Trump. Maybe we should give him a chance and support him if people like Dianna Ploss were willing to give up so much to campaign for him. She seems nice enough.”
As you listen to this interview, see if you don’t pick up on some of the same tell-tale signs I heard.
In this interview, Ms. Ploss….
Claims it’s not a time to gloat, but is a time for us all to be on the same team.
How nice. We’re all in this together. Except we’re not.
There’s no mention, of course, about what the Republican party has been doing the last 8 years to obstruct everything.
Claims not to know what “white nationalism” is but in the same breath says she takes exception to it in her defense of Bannon.
This is a serious credibility question. No one above the age of 8 or 9 can get away with saying they don’t know what “white nationalism” is. No one. And, how can she then say she takes offense to the term if she doesn’t know what it is.
Defends Trump’s supposed appeal to more than just white voters by saying Chinese Americans for Trump is “a huge group”
Huge? What is “huge”? This is another bright red credibility flag, especially after one looks at the numbers.
The Asian-American population who voted turned out to be 4% of the total electorate. Trump only got 29% of them.
There were 123.7million voters. Trump’s 29% of 4% of that equates to 1.43million, or 1.16% of the total votes.
Not sure where 29% of something or 1.16% of anything is “huge,” but that doesn’t dissuade Ms. Ploss from saying so.
She doesn’t offer a number, so we can’t know if she would claim that all of those Asian-American voters were all members of Chinese Americans for Trump or not.
Claims Black Lives Matter as having “done some not such good things”
What does that mean? Is she accusing the organization as a whole of orchestrating “not such good things”? By whose definition; Trump’s? Bannon’s? White nationalists’?
Insists she doesn’t believe the Southern Poverty Law Center, says they have a reputation of “preying on people”, says she “doesn’t buy” FBI statistics, seemingly tries to discredit them by asking if they’re from this week (as if whether they are or are not would somehow make them less believable).
SPLC preys on people? Doesn’t buy FBI data? She has either clearly drunk the alt-right Trump Kool-Aid here or, much more likely, it seems, she is following a script intended for a white conservative audience who believes they can pick and choose what facts they’ll believe.
Denies that Trump, his rhetoric, and his staffing decisions are responsible for the reasons people have for protesting. Despite that, she then congratulates Trump for saying on 60 Minutes that his followers should stop with the violence. She then excuses him again from any responsibility because he’s not yet the president and, like all good right-wingers, blames Obama for not leading and not talking to the American people……about what? Not protesting, a right we have in the First Amendment?
This is classic conservative deflection and misdirection. Learn to recognize it as such and call it out every time.
People are protesting Trump for who he is, what he has said and done, and what he said he wants to do as president. That’s their right.
As for him, if he’s not responsible for his followers and their use of him and his stated policies and goals as their justification for violence, then what does Trump have to apologize on 60 Minutes for and why congratulate him for doing so?
And, of course, “Thanks, Obama.” Everything can always be blamed on him.
This is where disingenuous narratives become obvious, and how people who hear them and agree with them can easily turn them into fake facts which become fake news.
Tries to excuse the swamp not being drained by dismissing the fact that lobbyists have been quoted as being excited that Trump will be president and that the GOP will be running things.
Again, she is simply denying facts and reality.
It didn’t matter to her that the Ms. Chakrabarti told her these were quotes in the Boston Globe.
Ms. Ploss can choose not to believe that Trump is an insider and that his decisions are proving that, but she and her fellow Trump supporters are wrong about this. He is, on every level, a poster child for privilege and corruption. He said so himself so many times, the least of which when he bragged about having been in the business of buying politicians for years.
Wraps up asking classic white-victim questions like, “What about me?” “What about my father? “Why does somebody else’s life matter more than mine or my father’s?”
If this isn’t a white nationalist dog whistle, I don’t know what one is.
This is just another white person’s jab at Black Lives Matter, as if to say that there’s only so much life and so much ‘matter’ to go around to help everyone.
This interview had all the trappings of a trap.
Listen to the tone of her voice and not just what she says. Listen to the inflections. Listen to the emphasis. It’s all wrong. It’s strained the way speech gets when someone is trying to tell a story they know isn’t true.
There’s just way too much evidence that points to Ms. Ploss as anything but genuine. Besides Kellyanne Conway, the other image I can’t get out of my head is that of an online-troll-turned-radio-interviewee. She fits the role as if straight out of central casting; former Democrat, white, female, middle-aged, New Englander, passionate about change, not at all scary, and caring for an elderly parent. What could be better?
This interview isn’t fake news in the literal sense, but I also can’t help wondering what the vetting process was that the Here & Now team used in deciding to interview Ms. Ploss.
The only other conclusion I can come to is that if Ms. Ploss isn’t a fake, she’s been completely and thoroughly duped into believing the most vile and despicable creature ever to win the GOP nomination and the election will suddenly change who he is and will stop doing what he’s done his entire life, and that’s to take advantage of people just like her and her father for his own personal gain.