Always keep in mind that one million times zero equals zero.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 5
...is no more.
Can you imagine what Lincoln would think of todays so called Republican Party? The party of Trump and MAGA? And, of course, the MAGAs would hate Lincoln... if they understood him.
Lincoln consistently likened the minoritarian efforts of the South to a mob, as it employed threats, intimidation, blackmail, political chicanery, voter fraud, and violence to coerce the majority into giving way to ever more unreasonable demands.
Sound familiar? Just substitute "MAGA" for "South".
Lincoln called it 'mobocracy'. A fitting description of the MAGAs.
Trump is as oafish and inarticulate as Lincoln was intelligent and articulate. What has happened to our conservative brethren!?
No. of Recommendations: 4
JMHO, but I think many (most?) of them have fallen victim to anger/rage media. So FAUX Noise and OANN and others have them whipped-up to a frenzy of rage, often about things that aren't things. So how can we expect them to process events and policies when they don't have accurate information? Even evaluating through a conservative lens, if they don't have accurate data then they will reach erroneous conclusions. And, if sufficiently enraged, then the response will be emotional with little or no evaluation.
Doesn't describe all of them. But I think the recent retirements of several Reps are indicative of "The Party of Lincoln" is just throwing their hands up and going home, abandoning to the enraged MAGA-ites.
No. of Recommendations: 3
JMHO, but I think many (most?) of them have fallen victim to anger/rage media. So FAUX Noise and OANN and others have them whipped-up to a frenzy of rage, often about things that aren't things. So how can we expect them to process events and policies when they don't have accurate information? Even evaluating through a conservative lens, if they don't have accurate data then they will reach erroneous conclusions. And, if sufficiently enraged, then the response will be emotional with little or no evaluation. Interesting piece in the Times today about Christian Nationalism. If I may extrapolate to the larger red/blue divide, it opines that the number of people aware of - or who car about - Christian nationalism
has not changed in 25-30 years. What has changed is the fringes on the left and the right who care
even more . But the mass on both sides is detached. Tuned out. Not paying attention. Doesn’t care.
To some degree this is expected, if you look at the participation levels on Election Day, it’s just interesting to me to see it statistically validated here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/opinion/christi... It’s not often that a poll result causes me to do a double take.
This month, however, a Pew Research Center survey grabbed my attention.
As part of a comprehensive poll on the importance of religion in public
life, Pew compared Americans’ knowledge of and support for Christian
nationalism between September 2022 and February 2024 and found no meaningful
change at all. The exact same percentage of Americans said they’d heard or
read about Christian nationalism — 45 percent in 2022 and 45 percent in 2024.
The exact same percentage of Americans said they’d never heard or read about
Christian nationalism — 54 percent in both years.
I’m reminded of one of the most illuminating studies I’ve ever read. It came
from the Hidden Tribes of America project, which was put together by a group
called More in Common. It surveyed 8,000 Americans to try to explore their
attitudes and conflicts beyond the red-blue divide, and one of its central
conclusions is critical to understanding the modern moment: Only a minority
of Americans are truly active in political debates, and they’re exhausting
and alienating the rest of the country.
In 2019 my Times colleagues Nate Cohn and Kevin Quealy used this data to
expose the vast difference between online and off-line Democrats. One-third
of Democrats post political content on social media; two-thirds do not.
And the differences between the two groups were significant. Online Democrats
were far more liberal, disproportionately white and far more likely to engage
in activism, such as attending a protest or donating to a candidate.
—more—-
No. of Recommendations: 3
Even evaluating through a conservative lens, if they don't have accurate data then they will reach erroneous conclusions. And, if sufficiently enraged, then the response will be emotional with little or no evaluation. - 1pg
------------
Even enraged and emotional, I can tell our border is not secure.
Even enraged and emotional, I know that a male does not menstruate.
Even enraged and emotional, I can see that decriminalizing shoplifting, prosecutors dropping charges on repeat offenders, judges being forced to release defendants with lengthy rap sheets on little or no bail. etc is demoralizing police, is emboldening criminals and is making our once great cities less safe.
Even enraged and emotional, I can see that continuing to enable urban homeless encampments make city streets dangerous for regular people to live and work and for businesses to operate.
Even enraged and emotional, I can see that our weak foreign policy, magnified by our timid responses to actual foreign aggression is emboldening our enemies.
Even enraged and emotional, I can see that parents have a right to know what is going on in their schools, what is being taught and at what age, and above all have a right to know about any developmental or emotional issues that are observed in their children.
Even enraged and emotional, I know these concerns either do not exist in liberal world or if they do, they are lingering effects of Donald Trump they would all be worse if not for enlightened leadership of liberals at all levels of government.
No. of Recommendations: 2
JMHO, but I think many (most?) of them have fallen victim to anger/rage media.
LOL. If only we believed the things that liberals believed.
The border is secure.
Crime is low.
The economy is in great shape.
The world respects Biden as a leader.
The world is at peace.
Etc.
I guess we just need to read the New York Times ,ore amd watch a lot of msnbc.
No. of Recommendations: 13
"Even evaluating through a conservative lens, if they don't have accurate data then they will reach erroneous conclusions. And, if sufficiently enraged, then the response will be emotional with little or no evaluation. - 1pg
------------
"Even enraged and emotional, I can tell our border is not secure.
Even enraged and emotional, I know that a male does not menstruate.
Even enraged and emotional, I can see that decriminalizing shoplifting, prosecutors dropping charges on repeat offenders, judges being forced to release defendants with lengthy rap sheets on little or no bail. etc is demoralizing police, is emboldening criminals and is making our once great cities less safe.
Even enraged and emotional, I can see that continuing to enable urban homeless encampments make city streets dangerous for regular people to live and work and for businesses to operate.
Even enraged and emotional, I can see that our weak foreign policy, magnified by our timid responses to actual foreign aggression is emboldening our enemies.
Even enraged and emotional, I can see that parents have a right to know what is going on in their schools, what is being taught and at what age, and above all have a right to know about any developmental or emotional issues that are observed in their children.
Even enraged and emotional, I know these concerns either do not exist in liberal world or if they do, they are lingering effects of Donald Trump they would all be worse if not for enlightened leadership of liberals at all levels of government." - BHM
Mike, thank you for a very concise demonstration of 1PG's point about using inaccurate data to reach erroneous conclusions.
Stop using information sources that take advantage of your ignorance. Why let people repeatedly make you look like a fool? Democracy requires an informed populace. You have to do better. You are failing your part.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The border is secure.
Crime is low.
The economy is in great shape.
The world respects Biden as a leader.
The world is at peace.
Mostly strawmen. Not worth knocking most of them down.
Though violent crime is near an all-time low (property crime is up a bit), and the economy is producing oodles of jobs (unemployment is also near an all-time low). Both of those topics can't be encapsulated in a one-liner, as they are more complex. But those are facts, which you can look up if you care to.
I guess we just need to read the New York Times
That would probably be a good idea. If you actually read it, you'd see that they'll jump all over a Dem (e.g. Obama, Biden, Menendez) when they screw up. Sure, they may lean a bit left, but they aren't a propaganda rag. Drop the Gateway Pundit, and a few others, which isn't suitable for lining a bird cage.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Others appear to be addressing your post. I'll just add that liberals either have different priorities, or understand that things aren't so pat. Consider our discussions about immigration and asylum, for example. Albaby (mostly) made you realize it isn't a simple fix. And even you lamented that the bipartisan bill should have had a hearing, and been debated in Congress. Yes, liberals -in general- give a different priority to that -and other- issues, but I don't think a serious person would say our border is "secure". Conservatives, especially those who rely on rubbish sources for their info, rank that as #1 or #2 in importance; convinced that murderers and rapists are streaming across the border to victimize you because that's what your rubbish sources tell you. Sure, it happens. But you are greater risk from your fellow Americans than a migrant.
Just as a "for example".
No. of Recommendations: 2
Mostly strawmen. Not worth knocking most of them down.And yet, several propane salesmen on this board attempt to argue those very things.
Though violent crime is near an all-time low (property crime is up a bit), and the economy is producing oodles of jobs (unemployment is also near an all-time low). Both of those topics can't be encapsulated in a one-liner, as they are more complex. But those are facts, which you can look up if you care to.Violent crime is at an all time low?
https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/exp...I suppose it depends on your frame of reference. Lots of folks in denial want to use 1990 as the frame of reference. Me, I prefer...5 years ago.
Unemployment:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/u6rateZooming in, it took over 2 years for U-6 to return to pre-pandemic but is now trending up.
That's the raw, uncurated data, which is what I prefer to work off of.
That would probably be a good idea. If you actually read it, you'd see that they'll jump all over a Dem (e.g. Obama, Biden, Menendez) when they screw up. Sure, they may lean a bit left, but they aren't a propaganda rag. Drop the Gateway Pundit, and a few others, which isn't suitable for lining a bird cage.The NYT does not such thing. They only "jump on" a democrat when they use the comical "Republicans pounce" or "Republicans seize" phrasing that allows them to not actually talk about what the latest malfeasance coming from the democrats is, but rather the fact that the Republicans are talking about it. It allows them to claim a veneer of journalistic credibility while in reality they're carrying water for the dnc.
No thanks. They are as far from credible journalism as anyone is.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I said "near" an all-time low, not "at". We are at pre-pandemic levels, and not that far above 2014.
Yes, U6 appears to be trending up a bit this year. It's still at pre-pandemic levels, and near the all-time low. I usually go to the BLS directly, but your site is a little simpler to read.
The NYT is far from perfect, but they are leaps and bounds better than many of the sources I see linked here. Probably because they employ actual journalists who go out and do research for their stories. They are still a human endeavor, with human fallibilities. But they are still way better than most of your sources.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Probably because they employ actual journalists who go out and do research for their stories. They are still a human endeavor, with human fallibilities. But they are still way better than most of your sources.
You mean stellar journalists like the ones who accepted a Pulitzer prize for the Russian collusion hoax? Those guys?
Appealing to Authority and Poisoning the Well are both logical fallacies. When you just complain about sourcing - and especially when citing dubious left wing outfits like many in the mainstream media - you take your eye off the ball.
No. of Recommendations: 4
You mean the hoax that sent some people to jail?
They're out now because Trump pardoned them, but they were convicted in a court of law. Sounds like not-a-hoax.
No. of Recommendations: 3
The RussiaRussiaRussia hoax where the people who lied to the FISA court and violated the rights of US citizens...and who didn't go to jail.
The NYT is just as bad as anyone else.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I'm looking forward to the day when a bunch of partisan Republican prosecutors start sending democrats to jail in large numbers for Reasons. The epic whipsawing of positions on this board will be entertaining to read.
