@sree if you believe that, I have some swamp land in Arizona for you. It’s premium too. The dotard really believes he knows more than the scientists and attempts to impose it on the nation. He pushed his favourite drug hydroxychloride (or whatever it was) even though it raised the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients. Because he said it, his minions believe he is right and the scientists are wrong. He even believes what he says is fact. It’s not fact and it’s not opinion. However, even if it is free speech, some free speech is illegal- like screaming fire in a theatre. You cannot do that because it endangers human lives and that is precisely why the dotard should not say a lot of his lies that he spews.
I don’t know if T rump’s claims about Mail-in voting being a rampant source of voter fraud, are ALSO his opinion. He didn’t frame it as an opinion, but said it as if it was fact. But it is definitely a lie. A lie that he could well be motivated to tell because he fears that Mail-in voting might be disadvantageous to him in the election.
He is, as always, doing anything he can to interfere with and gain an advantage of any kind he can in the Presidential election.
He is, as always, doing anything he can to interfere with and gain an advantage of any kind he can in the Presidential election.Trump is guided by the principle of free enterprise. He competes to win. This is the American way.
Cheating and breaking laws is not the U.S.'s way to winning an election. Lying, maybe, but not cheating and breaking laws, which is what the dotard does. He is not an honorable man at all and is filling the swamp with more swamp creatures as we speak, as well as killing hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of U.S. citizens.
Trump is guided by the principle of free enterprise. He competes to win. This is the American way.Sree, I'm letting you keep your privileges here because you hold the opinions of a minority of Americans. You're wrong, but this a forum, a place for discussion. You should read how the Constitution was written because this is exactly what they discussed; the question of how do you support freedom without giving people the freedom to lie and win by force.
He should be allowed to voice his opinion. This is what free speech is all about.I know it's lost on Sree, but here's a primer on the first amendment. It does not protect anyone from being told they are wrong, that is equally free speech. It doesn't guarantee that you have a platform. No private company is compelled to print or broadcast your words. We used to have the Fairness Act, but even that is gone. It can be limited, and always has been, for example, you have the right of assembly, but you can't pack a thousand people in a room designed for 100, you can't take over a public park with a megaphone.
for him to address the Physical Reality of what’s happening upon this planet as something distinct from human perceptions.Are you asking him to address climate science? I'm sure he has an opinion on it, but it would be out of his expertise.
I always hear him reducing it to humans arguing with each other, as though nothing greater exists out there – making him, to me, the same problem he’s preaching against.He talks about that because that's what his life work led him to. He started out interviewing people, seeing how they reacted to various odd situations, then developed his model. He takes a detached academic approach because that's what he is, an academic.
Until he can explicitly recognize and discuss the difference between his mind and all his fancy thinkingThat's sounding a little anti-intellectual there.
– from the realm of creation’s Physical Reality unfolding regardlessThat's exactly what he's doing. He's looking at how our biology and cultural evolution effects our thinking. Just like understanding the chemistry of drug addiction is how you address drug addiction.
Your transcript is a great demonstration of the importance of punctuation, and of listening to verbal queues and body language. Also of reading the book instead of just taking one minute of a conversation. I doubt we’ll get anywhere with this since you are bent on taking words out of context and attacking people instead of the problem. But here goes:
Haidt says, “So I think part what’s going on here is
you have to look at each person who cares about a cause. Now, are they
motivated to solve the problem or are they motivated to be part of the team and show how much they’re part of the team?” He asked rhetorically, since that is the thesis of his life’s work. If you know the work, his answer is, sometimes people have noble motivations, and sometimes they just want to be part of the crowd that they think is “in”, that they think is “right”, but if challenged, you find they aren’t able to articulate their reasoning.
He goes on then with a discussion of his work, something that has years of data and evidence and repeated experiments behind it, “and you know the conclusion I came to in the righteous mind is that our moral reasoning is really much more about display.” I don’t know how you can argue with this. If you have ever gone to a protest, I don’t care if it’s pro-gun or anti-war, and talked to the people in the crowd you’ll find many of them can’t articulate the basic arguments of the movement. Just watch an interviewer from The Daily Show do this with a random protester. They do it for a wide spectrum of political beliefs. There are some editing tricks that make people look stupider than they are, but people are actually not thinking, just going with their gut.
Haidt continues with some of his points that are expanded into chapters in his book, “We want people to think well of us. And so we adopt strategies that often alienate people; that fail to persuade them.”
And you keep crying out about what we should do CC. You keep lamenting that liberals have not persuaded conservatives. You think you have the right strategy, so you keep repeating it, despite the failure. How’s that working out for you?
Trump is guided by the principle of free enterprise.He is guided by the principle of what's best for T rump. If free enterprise got in the way of that, it would go bye-bye.
He is guided by the principle of what’s best for T rump.True. Are you not guided by the principle of what you consider is best for you? I don't think it is nice or proper to see myself as all-loving and view you as a selfish bastard. We are all good people: me, you and Donald Trump.
If free enterprise got in the way of that, it would go bye-bye.This was what happened when a free election won by Trump got in the way and the left tried to do him in. After 3 years, it's still going on regardless. Now, they are blaming the pandemic on him and hoping that the economy will tank just to destroy him. It's a disgrace.
Are you not guided by the principle of what you consider is best for you?Not exclusively so, as is the T rump.
This was what happened when a free election won by Trump got in the way and the left tried to do him in. After 3 years, it’s still going on regardless.Stop the RepugLIES. The left has never tried to end free enterprise. The left tries to put limits on unjust exploitational enterprise.
Now, they are blaming the pandemic on him and hoping that the economy will tank just to destroy him. It’s a disgrace.T rump didn't start the Pandemic but he OH SO DISGRACEFULLY mishandled it and made it worse with his incessant chronic pathologically dysfunctional narcissistic self serving (instead of nation serving) actions. The economy HAS TANKED, LARGELY SO, BECAUSE OF T RUMP'S INACTIONS AND LIES AND PERPETUAL IGNORANCE EARLY ON, AND SINCE (he even claimed that the whole thing was a Democratic HOAX!)
102,798 are now dead from a disease that T rump said would miraculously go away, and said would melt away in the heat of April, and that, early on, said that there were just 15 cases and those would be down to zero in a few days. AND all of the other LIES he told to try to keep the stock market constantly jacked up.
I, otoh, a progressive liberal Democrat, have been giving excellent advice for any leader, who would read it, as to how to address this pandemic better and to more successfully open the economy in a way that could actually work. Because I care about my country, and I care about the lives of others. The lives of others and country are secondary and tertiary, at best, for T rump.
Sree, are you so starved for interaction with an intelligent person, that you will so often type out blatheringly ridiculous statements, just so that someone of intellectual substance will respond to you?
Sree, are you so starved for interaction with an intelligent person, that you will so often type out blatheringly ridiculous statements, just so that someone of intellectual substance will respond to you?Strange as it may seem, I really like you crazies in this forum a lot. Out there in the real world, I wouldn't be able to come closer than 6 feet even if my life depended on it. What's wrong with you people?
@sree The dotard is not a good person. I have no idea whatever gave you that idea.
That said… “You people”? As opposed to what other group of people? Your people?
I think by “You people”, he is referring to me plus anyone else who is not a blatant RepugLIAR.
Although “my people” is pretty much, just me.
@timb I’m not a Repug LIAR. Never been a Repug for that matter. It’s just “you people” is often used by one who is closedminded. Then again, look who I’m talking about. So I’m not so sure he meant you alone.
That simple act lead to an outraged T rump signing an executive order the next day, commanding that social media companies cannot restrict his freedom of speech like that.And that ought to be meet with outrage and evidence by democratic minded citizens, but seems that grassroots anger still isn't being informed and organized with any effectiveness!
This was what happened when a free election won by TrumpWhat was fair about the election of 2016 ??
https: //www brennancenter org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explainedHow has Citizens United changed elections in the United States?
The ruling has ushered in massive increases in political spending from outside groups, dramatically expanding the already outsized political influence of wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups.In the immediate aftermath of the Citizens United decision, analysts focused much of their attention on how the Supreme Court designated corporate spending on elections as free speech. But perhaps the most significant outcomes of Citizens United have been the creation of super PACs, which empower the wealthiest donors, and the expansion of dark money through shadowy nonprofits that don’t disclose their donors.
A Brennan Center report by Daniel I. Weiner pointed out that a very small group of Americans now wield “more power than at any time since Watergate, while many of the rest seem to be disengaging from politics.“
“This is perhaps the most troubling result of Citizens United: in a time of historic wealth inequality,” wrote Weiner, “the decision has helped reinforce the growing sense that our democracy primarily serves the interests of the wealthy few, and that democratic participation for the vast majority of citizens is of relatively little value.”
An election system that is skewed heavily toward wealthy donors also sustains racial bias and reinforces the racial wealth gap. Citizens United also unleashed political spending from special interest groups.
Are political bots stacking the deck in the presidential race?
RAMI ESSAID, DISTIL NETWORKS@RAMIESSAID OCTOBER 4, 2016
… In April, Patrick Ruffini, a digital political consultant in Washington, DC, posted a Google Docs spreadsheet listing 500 pro-Trump accounts that had simultaneously tweeted a message urging voters to file FCC complaints over robocalls from the campaign of Trump rival Ted Cruz. Many of the same users had previously tweeted “17 Marketing Tips for B2B Websites,” Ruffini found. …
https: //www theguardian com/news/2018/may/06/cambridge-analytica-how-turn-clicks-into-votes-christopher-wylie
https: //towardsdatascience com/effect-of-cambridge-analyticas-facebook-ads-on-the-2016-us-presidential-election-dacb5462155d
https: //www wired com/story/what-did-cambridge-analytica-really-do-for-trumps-campaign/
Lets not forget the power that gerrymandering has brought to Republicans
By Julian E. Zelizer
June 17, 2016
Julian E. Zelizer is a political historian at Princeton University and a Fellow at New America. His most recent book is “The Fierce Urgency of Now: Lyndon Johnson, Congress, and the Battle for the Great Society.”
https: //www washingtonpost com/opinions/the-power-that-gerrymandering-has-brought-to-republicans/2016/06/17/045264ae-2903-11e6-ae4a-3cdd5fe74204_story html
Gerrymandering the Presidency: Why Trump could lose the popular vote in 2020 by 6 percent and still win a second term.
https: //blogs lse ac uk/usappblog/2017/02/08/gerrymandering-the-presidency-why-trump-could-lose-the-popular-vote-in-2020-by-6-percent-and-still-win-a-second-term/
Donald Trump was the clear Electoral College winner in the 2016 election, despite losing the popular vote by a wide margin to Hillary Clinton. Anthony J. McGann, Charles Anthony Smith, Michael Latner and Alex Keena write that, unless the Supreme Court stops congressional gerrymandering, President Trump can guarantee re-election in 2020 – even if he loses by 6 percent.
When the US Supreme Court takes up the issue of partisan gerrymandering this year, they will decide not only the fate of popular control in the House of Representatives and many state legislatures, but quite possibly the Presidency as well. If four Republican controlled state governments (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida) change the way they allocate Electoral College votes, President Trump could be re-elected in 2020, even if he loses the popular vote by 6 percentage points. All the states need do is to allocate Electoral College votes by congressional district (like Nebraska and Maine), instead of giving all of the state’s electors to the statewide winner.
Of course, this strategy only works to the benefit of the Republicans because the congressional districts in these states are heavily gerrymandered. As we argue in our book Gerrymandering in America, the congressional districts in many states are drawn to advantage the Republican Party. For example, in Pennsylvania in 2012 the Republicans took 13 out of 18 House districts even though the Democrats received more votes. If this partisan gerrymandering were outlawed, then allocating Electoral College votes by congressional district in the four states would actually disadvantage the Republican candidate for President.
However, if the Supreme Court continues to allow partisan gerrymandering …
AP analysis shows how gerrymandering benefited GOP in 2016
DAVID A. LIEB June 25, 2017
https: //apnews com/e3c5cc51faba4b7fb67d8a3f996bdaca
Less attention was paid to manipulation that occurred not during the presidential race, but before it — in the drawing of lines for hundreds of U.S. and state legislative seats. The result, according to an Associated Press analysis: Republicans had a real advantage.
The AP scrutinized the outcomes of all 435 U.S. House races and about 4,700 state House and Assembly seats up for election last year using a new statistical method of calculating partisan advantage designed to detect potential political gerrymandering.
The analysis found four times as many states with Republican-skewed state House or Assembly districts than Democratic ones. Among the two dozen most populated states that determine the vast majority of Congress, there were nearly three times as many with Republican-tilted U.S. House districts.
Traditional battlegrounds such as Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and Virginia were among those with significant Republican advantages in their U.S. or state House races. All had districts drawn by Republicans after the last Census in 2010. …
https: //www theguardian com/us-news/2017/jun/25/partisan-gerrymandering-republicans-2016-report
IT continues :
https: //www politico com/news/2020/04/21/senate-intel-report-confirms-russia-aimed-to-help-trump-in-2016-198171
By MARTIN MATISHAK and ANDREW DESIDERIO 04/21/2020 10:58 AM EDT
The Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday reaffirmed its support for the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election with the goal of putting Donald Trump in the Oval Office.
Tuesday’s bipartisan report, from a panel chaired by North Carolina Republican Richard Burr, undercuts Trump’s years of efforts to portray allegations of Kremlin assistance to his campaign as a “hoax,” driven by Democrats and a “deep state” embedded within the government bureaucracy. …
Even Republicans on the Intelligence Committee admit that Putin helped Trump get elected
https: //www washingtonpost com/opinions/2020/04/21/even-republicans-intelligence-committee-admit-putin-helped-trump-get-elected/
ByPaul Waldman
Opinion writer
April 21, 2020 at 2:28 p.m. MDT
Something unusual happened in Congress on Tuesday. Republicans in the Senate found within themselves the strength required to acknowledge reality:
The Senate Intelligence Committee has unanimously endorsed the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia conducted a sweeping and unprecedented campaign to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
The heavily-redacted report, based on a three-year investigation, builds on a committee finding nearly two years ago that the January 2017 intelligence community assessment (ICA) on Russia was sound. The spy agencies also found that Russia sought to shake faith in American democracy, denigrate then-candidate Hillary Clinton and boost her rival Donald Trump.
The report, while not unexpected, is nonetheless a milestone — the first extensive bipartisan congressional affirmation of the intelligence agencies’ conclusion, which continues to be at odds with President Trump’s oft-stated doubts about Russia’s role in the 2016 race.
As of this writing, President Trump has not yet tweeted angrily that the committee’s eight Republicans are Trump-hating, fake-news hoaxers, but he may have been distracted tweeting meaningless poll numbers to prove how universally beloved he is; give him some time.
It’s striking that even fervent Trump allies such as Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) were willing to sign on to a report that validates the clear conclusion of every serious person and agency that has examined the 2016 election. Whatever your view of the degree to which Trump himself and his campaign acted to help Russian leader Vladimir Putin in his attack on our system, the fact that the attack took place is beyond dispute. …
Russian President Vladimir Putin with President Trump in Vietnam in November 2017. (Hau Dinh/AP)
There was much that wasn’t honest, legal, or traditional American about the past election, nor trump’s totalitarian tendencies.
Just saying there is a treasure trove of information on many different levels.
Oh and just a friendly reminder,
this thread is supposed to be about the love of Science and Honestly and Learning about the physical world we are embedded within for our short moments. 
Hey Mriana, nice to hear from you again, seems like its been a while. How have you been?
I have been perplexed for years now at the intensity and efficacy of the LIES that STILL are believed by a large portion of US Americans. It has been a VERY successful propaganda campaign that Russia had no substantive interference in the 2016 election. This has been going on FOR YEARS, NOW. Believing the truth that Russia interfered in the 2016 election was being called a new McCarthyism, a hoax, a bunch of anti-Russian paranoia.
The LIES and propaganda have worked astoundingly well. 60% of US now believe the truth that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. ONLY 60%. That is SO STUPID. That is not enough truth believers to protect us when the LIARS are SO EFFECTIVE.
SO NOW, the Russians are interfering EVEN MORE INTENTLY AND WITH NEW TRICKS to interfere in the 2020 election. WHILE WE, THE PUBLIC OF US CITIZENS, HAVE STILL NOT EVEN BEEN GIVEN ALL OF THE EVIDENCE OF WHAT WENT ON WITH Russia AND T rump.
Intelligence officials have reportedly found that Russia is interfering in the 2020 elections to try to support President Trump’s reelection...…social media accounts linked to the Internet Research Agency (IRA), the Kremlin-linked company behind an influence campaign that targeted the 2016 elections, have indeed already begun their digital campaign to interfere in the 2020 presidential election. And they are getting even more brazen in tactics…
Some strategies and tactics for election interference were the same as before. Russia’s trolls pretended to be American people, including political groups and candidates. They tried to sow division by targeting both the left and right with posts to foment outrage, fear, and hostility. Much of their activity seemed designed to discourage certain people from voting. And they focused on swing states.
But the IRA’s approach is evolving. Its trolls have gotten better at impersonating candidates and parties, more closely mimicking logos of official campaigns. They have moved away from creating their own fake advocacy groups to mimicking and appropriating the names of actual American groups. And they’ve increased their use of seemingly nonpolitical content and commercial accounts, hiding their attempts to build networks of influence.
The IRA targets both sides of the ideological spectrum to sow division. This strategy is unique to Russian election campaigns, making it different than conventional persuasion-oriented propaganda or other foreign countries’ election interference strategies.
The divide between the police and the Black community, for instance, has been a running theme of the IRA’s influence campaigns, as clearly exhibited in IRA activities between 2014 and 2017 through posts around “Blue Lives Matter” vs. “Black Lives Matter.” Furthermore, the IRA exaggerated a sharp division in the African American community.
…race, American nationalism/patriotism, immigration, gun control, and LGBT issues were the top five issues most frequently discussed in the IRA’s campaigns.
Similarly, the issues frequently mentioned in the IRA’s posts in 2019 include racial identity/conflicts, anti-immigration (especially anti-Muslim), nationalism/patriotism, sectarianism, and gun rights.
… it is very clear that as of September 2019, the IRA-linked groups have already begun a systematic campaign operation to influence the 2020 elections on Facebook and Instagram.
IRA tactics aimed at the 2020 elections have become even more brazen than those from 2016.
… it is very clear that as of September 2019, the IRA-linked groups have already begun a systematic campaign operation to influence the 2020 elections on Facebook and Instagram. This includes targeting liberal voters with attack messages on major candidates in such as Biden …
Russian interference never really stopped and it is getting worse and a large portion of Americans still believe it never happened. Or worse, they believe it happened and want it to continue to happen. Remember when Americans thought they would be better off dead than red? :
