Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So you don't care if a full-fledged socialist is President!
What about a Communist? Would you support one of those too?
A Question for the Democrats, Liberals and Progressives
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
So you don't care if a full-fledged socialist is President!
What about a Communist? Would you support one of those too?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
What part of my reply did you not understand? Every candidate who has announced their candidacy is 150 % percent more fit for the job.
Fellow Forum Members,
One must wonder what makes a person like this Rusha literally want to believe lies and falsehoods. This quoted statement no doubt assumes that all the lies told about Trump are true and therefore she thinks he is a terrible person, which he is not. That is why she thinks these evil people who she is willing to vote for - infanticide promoters all - are actuality better than Trump. How is it that intelligent people can believe outright lies?
I did a Google search and found this, very interesting (I think I will make a separate thread out of it:
According to research, whether we realize it or not, most of people harbor false beliefs.
Moving away from the political arena for a moment, consider whether the following statements are true or false:
We only use ten percent of our brains.
We lose most of our body heat through our heads.
If you swallow chewing gum, it will stay in your system for seven years.
Cracking your knuckles will give you arthritis.
If you answered “true” to any of these, you’re guilty of believing falsehoods. Don’t feel too bad, however. According to the British Medical Journal, even doctors endorse many of these so-called ‘facts,’ and they show up frequently in both popular press as well as medical publications. Of course, it never hurt anyone to believe that humans only use ten percent of our brain capacity. When it comes to the hot-button political issues of the day, however, falsehoods can be harmful. Ultimately, our beliefs influence the way we vote, whom we elect, and what policies are enacted.
So, why do people so easily believe false things?
There are probably as many answers to this question as there are people who have ever believed falsehoods. Nonetheless, psychologists have shown that a relatively small set of cognitive biases or mental shortcuts can explain a lot about how false notions take root. One of the most agreed-upon ideas in the field of psychology is that people routinely use mental shortcuts to understand what happens around them. All kinds of things occur in the world around us, and we don't always have the time or energy to sit down and carefully examine all of them. So, we tend to use quick and largely unconscious rules-of-thumb to determine what we should believe—and these shortcuts sometimes steer us in the wrong direction. Here are some of the culprits:
The Availability Heuristic
Which job is more dangerous—working as a police officer or a fisherman? If you guessed police officer, you’re wrong. According to figures from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, fishing workers are ten times more likely than police to be killed on the job. This doesn't make police work any less important, of course, though it does mean that many of us have underestimated how dangerous other jobs are in comparison. The reason most of us believe that police officers are more likely to die at work is because of the availability heuristic, a mental shortcut that can lead us to overestimate the frequency of an event when that event is more “available” or vivid in our memory. When a police officer is killed in the line of duty, it’s rightly widely reported in the news and sticks with us in memory, so we tend to believe it must be more common than deaths in other professions. The availability heuristic is also the reason why doctors sometimes believe that diseases are more widespread than they really are—their jobs naturally fill their memories with vivid examples. In fact, when any of us read or watch a news story about an instance of terrorism, voter fraud, or other crime, we’re likely to overestimate how common such events are. Unless we’re careful, the vivid nature of the news story in our memory can unconsciously bias our estimate of how often these events actually happen. So, how common are things like voter fraud and crime? We can’t necessarily trust our hunches. It’s best to consult the statistics.
Emotional Reasoning
Whether we like it or not, all of us can be powerfully swayed by emotions. We'd like to think that our feelings are driven by logic and reason, particularly when it comes to our political beliefs. Unfortunately, this relationship is often reversed. Sometimes we end up using our reasoning ability to justify or defend a conclusion that we’ve already drawn based on our emotions. This phenomenon, called emotional reasoning, can lead us astray without our ever knowing. Psychiatrist Aaron T. Beck first noticed this in depressed patients. He observed that many patients drew obviously untrue conclusions about themselves based on how they felt, rather than the actual facts. "If I feel depressed,” one of his patients might say, "then there must be something objectively wrong with my job, my marriage, my children, or other parts of my life." But feelings are just feelings, even when they're powerful, and they can sometimes lie to us. Even in those of us who aren’t depressed, this tendency can affect our beliefs about virtually any emotionally charged topic, whether we’re talking about sexuality, religion, money, crime, or war. When we feel scared, angry, anxious, or even just uneasy about a topic, we can easily jump to the conclusion that the topic is somehow objectively bad or dangerous. Next time a topic makes you feel uncomfortable, that’s probably reason to keep an open mind, not to draw a conclusion.
Confirmation Bias
Once we have a belief, we tend to cling to it, even when it’s untrue. The confirmation bias is the tendency to seek out information that supports what we already believe. We do this in two important ways. First, we tend to surround ourselves with messages that confirm our pre-existing opinions. This is why, in the United States, conservatives tend to get their news from sources like Fox, whereas liberals tune into MSNBC. Second, we tend to ignore or discount messages that disprove our beliefs. If we’re sure that climate change is a hoax and someone shows us a research study disputing this belief, we might dismiss the study’s findings by saying that the researcher is obviously biased or corrupt. This protects us from having to change our beliefs. When our ideas are true, this probably isn’t such a bad thing. Unfortunately, it also can keep us firmly believing things are false.
While it’s clear that some people lie out of expedience or spite, most of us value the truth. We genuinely desire to accurately understand the facts and help others to do the same. As flawed human beings, however, none of us is a perfect barometer of the truth. Despite our best intentions, it’s easy to unconsciously buy into beliefs that feel right, even though they’re not. But it’s precisely when we’re sure that we’ve cornered the truth that we should take a step back, breath deeply, and open our minds as far as we can. If we were all able to take this basic truth about human nature to heart, perhaps this would allow us to more effectively come together during times of political strife.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I understand that you know nothing about economics and you wouldn't care if the USA is destroyed by socialism because you are infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...mp-derangement-syndrome-real-mental-condition
You need to seek professional help.
Insults, minus an actual *argument*.lain:
One could construe your refusal to give a real answer as an insult to our intelligence. Simply saying, "Orange man bad, socialists good", or words to that effect, has no merit at all.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The Republican's motto is "better dead than red."
The Democrat's motto is "better red than orange."
The Berean
Well-known member
:chuckle:
Wednesday, April 24
Race/Topic - Poll - Results - Spread
********************************************
President Trump Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 45, Disapprove 52 Disapprove +7
President Trump Job Approval Reuters/Ipsos Approve 40, Disapprove 53 Disapprove +13
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Politico/Morning Consult Biden 42, Trump 34 Biden +8
Congressional Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 17, Disapprove 59 Disapprove +42
Direction of Country Economist/YouGov Right Direction 39, Wrong Track 52 Wrong Track +13
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
********************************************
Based on the economic data, this President and the Republicans should be riding high in the polls, but when subjected to criticism from Biden "The Donald" becomes unhinged and undermines his own "success story" by doubling-down on his past comments concerning Charlotteville!
How else can one reconcile stellar economic results despite shutting down the federal government for 35 days, with only 39% of the electorate convinced that this President is leading the country in the right direction?
Although Trump has been quite adept at manipulating the news cycle by inventing controversies to distract the public's attention, the Democratic leadership have also discovered his fatal character flaw - when subjected to criticism, this President can't control his outbursts by retaliating with unscripted responses that overshadow his successes!
Last edited:
The Republicans lost the House in the 2018 Interims - the polls indicate that they are on track to lose the Senate and the White House in 2020!
With a "loose canon" like Trump in the Oval Office, all the Democrats need do is continue their steady stream of criticism directed at this President and he will "self-destruct" - taking the Republicans down with him!
Aimiel
Well-known member
At the time of Trump’s inauguration, conversely, (there were) about 2 million more people unemployed than job openings. In February (the most recent month for which the data is available) there were nearly 900,000 more job openings that people unemployed. Now that’s a Capitalist Comeback. -- SOURCE ARTICLE
That number may be true according to current government unemployment statistics, but it does not reflect the true number of those who cannot find jobs. The true unemployment numbers, figured the way the government used to figure them back in the 70s or 80s is more than 20% unemployment. Here is a link to a site where the economic numbers are figured the way the government used to figure for many decades. What we get now from government statisics does not reflect reality at all.
The economist who runs this site has the old formulas the government used for a long time and the charts he gives on the page I linked to reflect the changes the government has made to decieve us as to the real state of our economy and our nation. As you will see from the charts the government is a long ways away from being truthful with us.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
I think you mean people who are employable, not people "who cannot find jobs".
It is true that many people have stopped looking for jobs and they are not counted. But those who decide to start looking again ARE counted, which is why sometimes you will see a tiny tick up in unemployment even when there is big job creation.
So you have a small point in there, but you are not quite correct. If people decided to stop looking for jobs then that's on them. And counting people who are employable but not looking is not a fair representation either.
Actually the government has redefined how they figure the unemployment numbers several times during the last few decades. Back in the 70s if you worked part time you were not considered fully employed and were counted in the unemployment numbers. Now if you work part time you're considered employed the way the government now figures the numbers. Since part time jobs have been by far the most numerous jobs created since the end GWBs administration if they were still counted that would add a lot to the unemployment numbers. Years ago self-employed people who lost their business were also considered unemployed. Also before 1994 discouraged workers, i.e. long term unemployed workers, were counted among the unemployed.
There is an economist who works with large corporations who keeps track of the changes in how the government keeps track of economic statistics now and how they did it in the past. His name is John Williams and he is a highly regarded expert. His website url is: http://www.shadowstats.com/
Here is the unemployment chart from his website.
Here is the GDP chart from his website.
Here is the chart for his GDP numbers.
These three charts and two more on money supply and dollar indices can be found at the following link. http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
mikefaumuina
New member
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Thanks ... your endorsement made my day!
laugh your way to hell - this is what you support: