Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Old 31st Dec 2018, 17:19
  #16961 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,180
Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
Chuks, I did read the article. Simply political opinion (Slate, no less!) masquerading as some sort of informed insight.

However, I'm now taking Turbine's approach: I've won this argument. You and he are just too stupid to accept my more practical and reasoned discussion.
The amusing bit being the way you seem to think you won the argument. That also adds evidence to support the concept.

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2018, 18:20
  #16962 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,136
ob,
Very typical of your side, Turbine: denigrate the intelligence of the opposition.
Perhaps if you had some political views that people could relate to, your side would "win" debates more often.
I forgot to mention the John Ehrenreich article was sent to me by an Ohio Conservative Tea Partier. He thought the article was interesting and contained some valid points.
However, I'm now taking Turbine's approach: I've won this argument. You and he are just too stupid to accept my more practical and reasoned discussion.
No, my approach isn't the approach you have taken and have always taken as discussed in the article:
Conservatives are less introspective, less attentive to their inner feelings, and less likely to override their “gut” reactions and engage in further reflection to find a correct answer. As a result, they may be more likely to rely on error-prone cognitive shortcuts, less aware of their own unconscious biases, and less likely to respond to factual corrections to previously held beliefs.
Simply political opinion (Slate, no less!) masquerading as some sort of informed insight.
Obviously you have no clue as to who John Ehrenreich is. He is a respected professional and has written extensively about the political scene and other important issues such as healthcare. One of his latest books is titled Third Wave Capitalism, How Money, Power, and the Pursuit of Self-Interest Have Imperiled the American Dream.

But you did confirm my point of debating with a Trump supporter...






Turbine D is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2018, 18:32
  #16963 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 586
This part, Turbine:
less attentive to their inner feelings, and less likely to override their “gut” reactions and engage in further reflection to find a correct answer.
We agree on. Conservatives spend less time worrying about "feelings" and inspecting the inside of their belly button, and more dealing with facts, truth, and the practicalities of life.
obgraham is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2018, 18:34
  #16964 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,441
“Conservatives are less introspective, less attentive to their inner feelings, and less likely to override their “gut” reactions and engage in further reflection to find a correct answer. As a result, they may be more likely to rely on error-prone cognitive shortcuts, less aware of their own unconscious biases, and less likely to respond to factual corrections to previously held beliefs”

Do you know if the author’s conclusion was based off anything beyond personal opinion?
West Coast is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2018, 19:02
  #16965 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 586
Doesn't really concern lefties, Westy, as they are sure that their opinion is the same thing as established truth.
obgraham is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2018, 20:59
  #16966 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,136
WC,
Do you know if the author’s conclusion was based off anything beyond personal opinion?
The answer to your question may reside in this:

https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthe...33&context=etd

I am sure there are other studies that would produce similar results...
Turbine D is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2018, 23:48
  #16967 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 586
That's rich, Turbine: now you are using some kid's Masters Thesis based on a study of young people on a dating website, to validate your political theories? You're going to have to go a bit deeper than that!

Somebody writes an opinion. It gets quoted somewhere. Then somewhere else. Now it is established policy because "the consensus" says so. In this case, however, it's still a group of millenial kids on a dating website.

This is the sort of approach which has allowed the AGW crowd to entrench their views.
obgraham is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 00:01
  #16968 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
That's rich, Turbine: now you are using some kid's Masters Thesis based on a study of young people on a dating website, to validate your political theories? You're going to have to go a bit deeper than that!

Somebody writes an opinion. It gets quoted somewhere. Then somewhere else. Now it is established policy because "the consensus" says so. In this case, however, it's still a group of millenial kids on a dating website.

This is the sort of approach which has allowed the AGW crowd to entrench their views.

weemonkey is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 00:05
  #16969 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,441
Originally Posted by Turbine D View Post
WC,

The answer to your question may reside in this:

https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthe...33&context=etd

I am sure there are other studies that would produce similar results...
”may reside” Leave yourself an out, I get it.

Your Google fu skills aside, given the article above is written by a student who also happens to be a different person from the original, is the text I noted based on his opinion?

You don’t know do you?
West Coast is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 04:26
  #16970 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 138
Why not earlier?

Since Mr. Trump had control of the Congress until last eve (or is it until 3 Jan?), why did the Republicans not apportion the money for his dream wall whilst they could?

There is a lot I do not know about U.S. politics and one of those points is why Trump's party is now trying to extract money from the Democrats. This seems bizarre...

Also, how much fencing does 5 billion buy these days? A few hundred meters?
Uncle Fred is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 10:19
  #16971 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,777
The US House only requires a simply majority, 218 out of 435, to pass legislation. However the Senate allows unlimited debate and requires 3/5s (60 out of 100) to end debate. The Republicans did not hold that many seats. To actually pass legislation the Senate also only requires a majority. It used to be 2/3s of those present as long as there was a quorum present but the rules were changed in the 1970's. There is the so called "nuclear" option to end debate with a simple majority which has been used a few times for judicial appointments but there is some fear that expanding the nuclear option to day to day legislation will come back to haunt whichever party invokes it.
MarkerInbound is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 13:30
  #16972 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,136
WC,
”may reside” Leave yourself an out, I get it.
Your Google fu skills aside, given the article above is written by a student who also happens to be a different person from the original, is the text I noted based on his opinion?
You don’t know do you?
If you read the article closely,
Conservatives are also less introspective, less attentive to their inner feelings, and less likely to override their “gut” reactions and engage in further reflection to find a correct answer. As a result, they may be more likely to rely on error-prone cognitive shortcuts, less aware of their own unconscious biases, and less likely to respond to factual corrections to previously held beliefs.

I didn't have to Google anything, click on what is underlined in blue.. But thanks for confirming that you fit some of the description the author pointed out is the difference between being a Conservative today verses being a Liberal today.

41 years ago, a Conservative Republican US Congressman who is still in Congress said this:

"My children, who were taught at home and in church and at school that honesty and integrity do matter, have witnessed the president of the United States shamelessly lie to the American people. No person stands above the law. All Americans – no matter how rich, how powerful, how well connected, should be held accountable for their actions. Every American must be held accountable."

When he was asked the other day if this statement applies to Donald J. Trump for whom he is a staunch supporter, he responded, no. Trump hasn't lied under oath. It is just an illustration of the shift in Conservative values and thinking to defend their current positions.

ob,
That's rich, Turbine: now you are using some kid's Masters Thesis based on a study of young people on a dating website, to validate your political theories? You're going to have to go a bit deeper than that!
Actually ob, the more you post, the more you become the poster boy fitting the description of a Conservative in the article and why.

WC & ob, If you both disagree with the article, what points don't you accept? Where is the evidence that supports your opinions? What supports your reasoning?
Turbine D is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 15:53
  #16973 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 586
Once again, Turbine, you seem to have missed the point that the "article" you are quoting is a college term paper!

How am I supposed to respond to a "study" carried out by a college girl who simply offers opinions about some of her college friends looking to get laid?

The shallowness of your thought is amazing.
obgraham is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 16:10
  #16974 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,441
Originally Posted by Turbine D View Post
WC,

If you read the article closely,
Conservatives are also less introspective, less attentive to their inner feelings, and less likely to override their “gut” reactions and engage in further reflection to find a correct answer. As a result, they may be more likely to rely on error-prone cognitive shortcuts, less aware of their own unconscious biases, and less likely to respond to factual corrections to previously held beliefs.

I didn't have to Google anything, click on what is underlined in blue.. But thanks for confirming that you fit some of the description the author pointed out is the difference between being a Conservative today verses being a Liberal today.

41 years ago, a Conservative Republican US Congressman who is still in Congress said this:

"My children, who were taught at home and in church and at school that honesty and integrity do matter, have witnessed the president of the United States shamelessly lie to the American people. No person stands above the law. All Americans – no matter how rich, how powerful, how well connected, should be held accountable for their actions. Every American must be held accountable."

When he was asked the other day if this statement applies to Donald J. Trump for whom he is a staunch supporter, he responded, no. Trump hasn't lied under oath. It is just an illustration of the shift in Conservative values and thinking to defend their current positions.

ob,

Actually ob, the more you post, the more you become the poster boy fitting the description of a Conservative in the article and why.

WC & ob, If you both disagree with the article, what points don't you accept? Where is the evidence that supports your opinions? What supports your reasoning?
Look, you got caught offering a student’s paper as your vindication regarding the original piece to which you haven’t the slightest clue as to the veracity of. Stay away from simply googling a few key words and posting the search results as your “evidence”.

I didn't have to Google anything
Well, for a guy who doesn’t “have to”, you sure have have been doing a lot of it. If you don’t “have to”, then stop. Convince me with your thoughts, not a college student’s work.

West Coast is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 18:45
  #16975 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,136
WC,
Well, for a guy who doesn’t “have to”, you sure have have been doing a lot of it. If you don’t “have to”, then stop. Convince me with your thoughts, not a college student’s work.
ob,
The shallowness of your thought is amazing.
ob, it seems to me the shallowness has more to do with your inability to read the article Why Are Conservatives More Susceptible to Believing Lies? By JOHN EHRENREICH- RESEARCH STATISTICS AND PROOF IN BLUE and to provide any response as to why it isn't accurate. WC, there is no need for me to convince you of anything, you are a big guy, reread John Ehrenreich's article again, the evidence and proof are contained in the article.

As the John Ehrenreich article points out, conservatives and liberals seem to hold different beliefs about what constitutes “truth.” Finding facts and pursuing evidence and trusting science is part of liberal ideology itself. For many conservatives, faith and intuition and trust in revealed truth appear as equally valid sources of truth. One prominent conservative summed up truth by simply stating "Truth isn't Truth" -Rudy Giuliani. WC, try using one or more of your search tools on your computer, you don't have to go to the public library to find facts, data or evidence and you don't have to buy a set of encyclopedia books with a yearly update either. Try it sometime...
Turbine D is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 20:18
  #16976 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 586
This is a silly interchange, Turbine. After the callout about one of your sources, you fall back to an opinion article in a standard leftwing media site, by a longstanding leftwing academic, offering his opinions that people opposed to his views are obviously dumber and stupider. By and large that is the sum of much of the Left's debating techniques.

Well, I'm not interested in playing that game. If you don't agree with a policy of conservatives, fine -- make your argument. But you are wasting my time if the main argument you make is that your opposites are by definition too stupid to be as enlightened as you.
obgraham is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 21:22
  #16977 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,136
ob,
This is a silly interchange, Turbine. After the callout about one of your sources, you fall back to an opinion article in a standard leftwing media site, by a longstanding leftwing academic, offering his opinions that people opposed to his views are obviously dumber and stupider. By and large that is the sum of much of the Left's debating techniques.
You seem to continue to miss the point. The source you called out isn't my source, it was a source in blue in John Ehrenreich's article, his source, not mine. Your frequently used debating technique is to attack the person you are debating, screw the article or subject of the debate. Keep posting about this and you are proving one or more of John's points.
Turbine D is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 22:13
  #16978 (permalink)  

Plastic PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,875
Well, I'm sorry Turbine D, because I'm usually on your side, but not this time I'm afraid.

I read Ehrenreich's article and with due deference to his credentials, I thought it was a nothingburger.
We are all susceptible to bias, and I find it very hard to agree with his argument that "Conservatives" are more likely to be led down the garden path by nonsense than "Liberals".
In fact I find hard-core "Liberals" are just as likely to believe in junk-science and junk-facts as "Conservatives", if not more so.

What we should one and all be doing is a bit more critical thinking these days - I know that it's hard while being deafened by the roar of the Internet, where any damn fool can raise up a following of tens of thousands in an hour and a million in a day, but we have to do it.

Allow me to quote a Missourian who served as a member of the U.S. House Committee on Naval Affairs. Mr. Willard Vandiver, a scholar, writer and lecturer was speaking to Philadelphia's Five O'Clock Club. Questioning the accuracy of an earlier speaker's remarks he concluded "I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me."

We would all be wiser if we followed his dictum....

Mac
Mac the Knife is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 22:28
  #16979 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,441
Originally Posted by Turbine D View Post
ob,

You seem to continue to miss the point. The source you called out isn't my source, it was a source in blue in John Ehrenreich's article, his source, not mine. Your frequently used debating technique is to attack the person you are debating, screw the article or subject of the debate. Keep posting about this and you are proving one or more of John's points.

I’m waiting for evidence rather than the opinion of Ehrenreich. I seek fact rather than opinion that his and your opinion is accurate. As I approach my mid 50s, I look back at the changes in my beliefs. I’ve changed political parties, I’ve changed social stances and am far more tolerant. I don’t expect you to believe me, it isn’t important but it tells me that the charges leveled aren't accurate.

What it does tell me is that you and Ehrenreich (and the young college student who’s opinion you offer as gospel) are parading opinion around as fact. They caught a big fish with it however, you.

What I also know is once you see opinion that aligns with yours, it suddenly becomes “evidence and proof” to quote you rather than what it is, opinion.
West Coast is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 02:43
  #16980 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 64
Posts: 57
So quiet in here. Everyone waiting for the Dems moves?

Seems Mattis was "essentially" fired now, never mind the reasoned letter of resignation.

New motto for the super-power is being talked about:
Ready, Fire, Aim.
meadowrun is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.