And the 2020 winner is ... dangerous distrust

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I think we live in a society where we shouldn't have any distrust in our election process.

Oh, dear, I see where you took something I said a little too literally. No, it did not suddenly become "bad". It was bad before, too. But it very clearly became much worse in this cycle. And not just in terms of scope. Again, you had- still have!- a sitting POTUS aggressively fomenting doubt and discord surrounding the electoral process. Do you really not see how that is different? I think you do. 

Back to 2016, though. Do you realize that trump made fraudulent claims about electing rigging and widespread voter fraud leading up to that election, too? Did you know that half of Republicans surveyed said they would reject the results if trump had lost? Can you point to anything in this cycle similar to Robert Mueller conclusively stating that ""the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion"? 

17 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I would rather be a clown than an uninformed ignorant fool such as yourself. At least my morals aren't changing to fit whatever agenda I am pushing.

Please tell me how my morals are changing? I'm not sure you know what that word means? Also, I thought you were above name calling? I mean, you're constantly posting things to that effect. Seems you'd actually adhere to your own standards?

I fully realize how childish I'm being in this back and forth but hopefully at least you don't feel so condescended to. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

My math might be a little rusty on this since my study of this in college was a while back, but by my calculation, there's a 95% confidence level that the percentage of Republicans who believe the election was not "free and fair" is between 66.67% and 73.43%.

Now as far as the sample being properly randomized, that's a different argument.  Like I said before, if you have an issue with whether the sample was properly randomized, it's a legit reason to question the result but you need to have something to go on, not just speculation because you don't like the answers.

 

I don't think 42% is a particularly good number to begin with, so yes, 66-73% is startlingly bad.

 

 

I read enough of their methodology documents to know that I would question it without knowing more on how they sampled it geographically going on such a small size. I would also like to know why they changed the answer choices for 2020. They had more options which gave choices based different levels of distrust and not a yes or no or no answer at all. 

42% distrust and 70% distrust is a large difference but to me equally bad when you consider we should have virtually none.

[TitanTiger 20,506]

4 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I read enough of their methodology documents to know that I would question it without knowing more on how they sampled it geographically going on such a small size. I would also like to know why they changed the answer choices for 2020. They had more options which gave choices based different levels of distrust and not a yes or no or no answer at all. 

42% distrust and 70% distrust is a large difference but to me equally bad when you consider we should have virtually none.

I think it's more a function of a society that has decided that only news and information which confirms what they already have decided to believe is worth reading or watching than it is an actual failure of our election processes.  Hell, just because of how stupid we've become I'd expect the minimum baseline of people who will just assume an election was rigged in some way to cause their favored candidate to lose to be around 25% no matter what.  But anything near 70% of a voting constituency thinking the election was rigged against their guy is catastrophic, especially considering the absolute water vapor such suspicions are based on.

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I think it's more a function of a society that has decided that only news and information which confirms what they already have decided to believe is worth reading or watching than it is an actual failure of our election processes.  Hell, just because of how stupid we've become I'd expect the minimum baseline of people who will just assume an election was rigged in some way to cause their favored candidate to lose to be around 25% no matter what.  But anything near 70% of a voting constituency thinking the election was rigged against their guy is catastrophic, especially considering the absolute water vapor such suspicions are based on.

Totally on the first part. And on the last part. I know that pushes the conversation towards less objective positions, but I think truly impartial observers of each situation would see the increased danger in a sitting leader being the sole source of that distrust. No, trump isn't Hitler, Republicans aren't Nazis and we're not going to become the Third Reich, but there are definitely parallels between this situation and Germany in 1918. 

 

[TitanTiger 20,506]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

No, trump isn't Hitler, Republicans aren't Nazis and we're not going to become the Third Reich, but there are definitely parallels between this situation and Germany in 1918. 

One can borrow from another's playbook even if they don't join another's team.

[johnnyAU 3,636]

15 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think it's more a function of a society that has decided that only news and information which confirms what they already have decided to believe is worth reading or watching than it is an actual failure of our election processes.

This confirmation bias exists in just about all areas of information exchanges these days sadly. It has compounded with social media, and it certainly isn't limited to either political side.

[TitanTiger 20,506]

8 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

This confirmation bias exists in just about all areas of information exchanges these days sadly. It has compounded with social media, and it certainly isn't limited to either political side.

I don't think it's limited to either side.  But I do think for whatever reason, conservatives seem to be more prone in this moment to it overall than moderates and those left of center.  I think years and years of fomenting distrust in the "mainstream media" on talk radio (which has been dominated by conservatives) has borne its fruit.  

And don't take me saying that to mean that there isn't leftward bias in the media.  There has been and is and conservatives are reacting to it.  My fear is that we have over-reacted to it, as Americans in general are wont to do.  Rather than read a variety of sources understanding the varying levels of human bias in them, most have just decided to cocoon into an increasingly more radical and strident cloister of sources as we're seeing with this irrational retreat from long time trusted source Fox News and into loony bins like Newsmax and OANN.

[johnnyAU 3,636]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't think it's limited to either side.  But I do think for whatever reason, conservatives seem to be more prone in this moment to it overall than moderates and those left of center.  I think years and years of fomenting distrust in the "mainstream media" on talk radio (which has been dominated by conservatives) has borne its fruit.  

And don't take me saying that to mean that there isn't leftward bias in the media.  There has been and is and conservatives are reacting to it.  My fear is that we have over-reacted to it, as Americans in general are wont to do.  Rather than read a variety of sources understanding the varying levels of human bias in them, most have just decided to cocoon into an increasingly more radical and strident cloister of sources as we're seeing with this irrational retreat from long time trusted source Fox News and into loony bins like Newsmax and OANN.

Well, I agree and disagree.  Years and years of hyperbole and alarmism from the media, as well as the new age of "silencing" any voices that disagree with whichever narrative is being perpetuated has not only fostered this distrust, but fueled other sources and platforms to either counter it or add to it. It's a problem that continues to add to itself.  As you have already mentioned, many folks cling to only the sources which already confirm their own beliefs without question, or in some cases without actual rational thought. I see this reliance and reluctance at about an equal clip on both sides, with neither side realistically willing to budge. 

[homersapien 11,412]

3 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

So you buy into it as well.............Apple has no intention of really reducing emissions. If they did they wouldn't be building them in countries with hardly any environmental regulations. Not to mention the additional emissions for more travel from plant to plant. 

I am pretty sure that, that easily causes more pollution than whatever size of packaging they reduced. But if it makes people feel good for making a tiny contribution to helping the environment then that is great. But when my friend was touting Apple about how great it was that they are trying to help and he ordered a new charger on Amazon all I could do is shake my head. 

As Titan pointed out, the point is they are not supplying "X" amount of chargers to people who don't really need them.  Those unneeded chargers have a carbon/pollution footprint as well.  (I am guessing it's in excess of the extra packaging, on a total net basis.)

And there's absolutely no way you can be "pretty sure" their strategy creates more pollution until you've done the life cycle analysis on the net effect.

[homersapien 11,412]

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Pfft, doesn't matter to the "moral superior" liberals.

I mean if the shoe is on the other foot they would never ever think the election was rigged right? LMAO

Aw, does liberalism really threaten you that much?  No wonder Bird thanked you for such a mindless statement. 

You seem to hold liberals responsible for existing in the world we have while at the same time holding them responsible for trying to change it.

And what do you mean by the "shoe being on the other foot?  Are you suggesting Biden - or the Democrats - would emulate Trump in insisting the election was fraudulent?

 

  

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Aw, does liberalism really threaten you that much.  No wonder Bird thanked you for such a mindless statement.  You seem to hold liberals responsible for existing in the world we have while at the same time holding them responsible for trying to change it.

And what do you mean by the "shoe being on the other foot?  Are you suggesting Biden - or the Democrats - would emulate Trump in insisting the election was fraudulent?

 

  

You need to ask your boy Loof about that....those were his words not mine.........

 

The only thing that scares me about liberals (and conservatives for that matter) is how gullible you people are. You should strive for better change than in this world than what your cult leaders give you. But if being happy with policies that make very little difference when better can actually be achieved.....you do you.

[homersapien 11,412]

3 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Better have a better poll than the politico poll. Because if you dive into it, they don't have a sample size large enough of republicans to translate to a meaningful confidence level.

First, I don't need a poll.  I'm "pretty sure". 

Just like I am pretty sure you are dead wrong on the statistics.

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

You need to ask your boy Loof about that....those were his words not mine.........

 

The only thing that scares me about liberals (and conservatives for that matter) is how gullible you people are. You should strive for better change than in this world than what your cult leaders give you. But if being happy with policies that make very little difference when better can actually be achieved.....you do you.

Imagine not being able to comprehend the duality of both taking the best option and striving for something better at the same time.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

3 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Imagine not being able to comprehend the duality of both taking the best option and striving for something better at the same time.

Do whatever you want that makes you sleep better at night. But don't act like there is a wide gap with what each party does better than the other. If you think the democrats are way superior than republicans then I feel sorry for you. That logic is just as flawed that as the far right that buy their BS hook line and sinker.

[homersapien 11,412]

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

The 538 linked referenced it.

Let's say it is 70% is accurate, why does it matter? Is it only bad because they aren't democrats? Or is it bad because more thought it was rigged than when Hillary lost? Is it ok for her to plant that seed of doubt in her voters? 

You have any basis for suggesting that or is it just rhetoric you pulled out of your ass?

[homersapien 11,412]

16 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

You need to ask your boy Loof about that....those were his words not mine.........

 

The only thing that scares me about liberals (and conservatives for that matter) is how gullible you people are. You should strive for better change than in this world than what your cult leaders give you.

But if being happy with policies that make very little difference when better can actually be achieved.....you do you.

You are projecting now, in the purest sense.

And I - for one liberal - am not happy with policies that "make very little difference", which is why I support more significant policies -you know the ones that conservatives tend to oppose.

You are just begging the question here.  (That's a logical fallacy.)

 

[homersapien 11,412]

15 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Imagine not being able to comprehend the duality of both taking the best option and striving for something better at the same time.

He's much better at exposing his belly button than he is at debating.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

 

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

He's much better at exposing his belly button than he is at debating.

You just sound creepy if you are thinking about people's belly buttons. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

25 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You have any basis for suggesting that or is it just rhetoric you pulled out of your ass?

I attached a file of a 2016 survey previously that showed 42% of democrats think the 2016 election was rigged. If you'd pull your head out your own ass you would realize the basis of what I said. But this wouldn't be the first time you ignored something I post to back up what I say. But then again, you just ignore it when facts are presented.

[McLoofus 35,182]

41 minutes ago, homersapien said:

He's much better at exposing his belly button than he is at debating.

I've noticed!

[DKW 86 7,437]

Why election polls were so wrong again in 2020

The idea that anyone in America takes any polling at face value is just incomprehensibly stupid.

[homersapien 11,412]

7 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

.....considering that is the number of democrats that thought 2016 was rigged....

Just to clarify:   Do you mean "rigged" (as in by our own system) or "influenced" by Russian social media proxies?

[homersapien 11,412]

3 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

I attached a file of a 2016 survey previously that showed 42% of democrats think the 2016 election was rigged. If you'd pull your head out your own ass you would realize the basis of what I said. But this wouldn't be the first time you ignored something I post to back up what I say. But then again, you just ignore it when facts are presented.

More belly button. 

[DKW 86 7,437]

3 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Imagine not being able to comprehend the duality of both taking the best option and striving for something better at the same time.

Dude, take it from me. NUANCE is a concept that just about NO ONE on this board can handle, at all, under any circumstances, on any topic. If you try two look at both sides of anything you will be called Trumpster, MAGA...by 95% of the board.

[DKW 86 7,437]

15 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't think it's limited to either side.  But I do think for whatever reason, conservatives seem to be more prone in this moment to it overall than moderates and those left of center.  I think years and years of fomenting distrust in the "mainstream media" on talk radio (which has been dominated by conservatives) has borne its fruit.  

And don't take me saying that to mean that there isn't leftward bias in the media.  There has been and is and conservatives are reacting to it.  My fear is that we have over-reacted to it, as Americans in general are wont to do.  Rather than read a variety of sources understanding the varying levels of human bias in them, most have just decided to cocoon into an increasingly more radical and strident cloister of sources as we're seeing with this irrational retreat from long time trusted source Fox News and into loony bins like Newsmax and OANN.

Had a long conversation with some Conservative Family members yesterday. 
You would be correct. They have indeed moved FROM Fox, TO Newsmax, OANN, etc.

Sadly the RusHannity dogma is bearing very very bad fruit.