Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This study correlatives with other studies that show that conservatives have a higher tendency to be close minded - so much so that the more facts you cite to refute a conservative's belief, the more likely you just make that person dig in and believe in it even more.
This type of personal characteristics to dig in despite overwhelming facts to the contrary, couple with a conservative's tendency to believe in conspiracy, make it easy to manipulate them.
[MOD CUT/copyright violation]
In addition, conservatives are more likely to engage in "magical thinking" - believing in pure fantasy or generally nonfact based bias.
[MOD CUT/copyright violation]
All of the above combine to this: a typical conservative is not interested in facts. His/her belief is not based on facts, facts have no effect on making a typical conservative sees the truth, and it only serves to make the conservative dig in the heels. Furthermore, they engage in "magical thinking", basically inventing their own fantasy/fear and base their belief around it.
If you've ever wonder why all the facts you cited are so easily brushed off but the lies stick like glue to certain demographic. This helps to explain why.
So how to do you convince a conservative? If anyone has ever done it, let me know.
.
Oh this is precious :
Then there is Russia, arguably the country (apart from North Korea) that has moved furthest past truth, both in its foreign policy and internal politics. The Ukraine crisis offers examples aplenty: state-controlled Russian media faked interviews with “witnesses” of alleged atrocities, such as a child being crucified by Ukrainian forces; Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, did not hesitate to say on television that there were no Russian soldiers in Ukraine, despite abundant proof to the contrary.
I was in Russia when our media was telling me what was going on, lying. Yes, Putin said there were no Russian soldiers in Ukraine as official state policy, wink wink, just like the US pretends its NGO's are not staging agitprop wink wink.
I don't even know how to respond to this idiotic tripe.
In early 2009, a U.S. government contractor sent a Serbian music promoter to Cuba with these covert marching orders: Recruit one of Havana's most notorious rappers to spark a youth movement against the government.
And Obama supporting ISIS?
Sure seems that way. But I guess the left does consider incompetence and idiocy to be good cover for their ilk. That's always the toughest challenge with dope smoking lefties , proving malice when stupidity will suffice.
All being a conservative really means is they do not believe in the prevailing fads as easily and that includes "new information". It is often the correct route , just look at the latest diet advice that changes daily.
We libertarian types have a different reason, we don't trust argument by authority like a group think liberals that act impulsively on the last thing they were told.
Let's review the current top button issues and see if it correlates with the studies:
First, let's see what the liberals main complaints about Trumps are:
1. Bribing an attorney general - unproven but the charge is based on evidence.
2. Trump University lawsuit - fact.
3. Trump's racism - you can argue if he is racist but there is mountains of evidence he said racially insensitive things. Fact based.
4. Trump's lack of experience/knowledge on running a country. Fact, even Trump admits it.
5. Trump's tendency to get unhinged. Fact, just read his twitter account.
6. His business's bankruptcies. Fact.
7. The harm his policies will do. Fact. You can argue about his policies, but there is no denying the legions of experts who said his policies are very bad ideas.
Now, let's see the conservative's complaints about Hillary:
1. Her health. Fictional, there no facts whatsoever.
2. Her supposed murders. Fictional. Example: somehow a guy died of a serious illness is her fault.
3. Clinton Foundation. Fictional. There is absolutely no evidence that the foundation or Hillary did anything wrong.
4. Her lying. Debatable.
5. Benghazi. Started out as facts but somehow the conservatives managed to turn it fictional with testimony from people who weren't even there and dialog said in the movie repeated as facts.
6. Email. Finally, we get to something that is mostly fact based. Bravo.
7. Her one case defending a criminal. Again, started out as fact but was injected with so many lies that this issue can legitimately qualifies as a lie.
Notice that ALL of the liberals complaints about Trump is facts based.
Notice that ALMOST ALL of the conservatives' complaints about Hillary is Lie based.
And notice one very important thing - how often do you hear a conservative actually debate Hillary's policy??? Almost never right? How often do you see a conservative debate Hillary's record in the Senate?? I've seen it once, and it was a poster trying to lie about her record. Wouldn't you think a former Senator's accomplishment on Capital Hill is important? Not to certain people apparently.
Turns out, those who belief in lies don't really want to debate facts.
.
And everything you state here is undisputed fact? People should accept it all as such...why? Exactly. The only actual fact I see here, is that this is all opinion, not fact. Things you BELIEVE to be true, things you WANT to be true, but, that doesn't mame any of it undisputed truth, beyond contestation. Which is what a fact is.
Noww, I'm not a Trump or Clinton fan. One is a lit, loose cannon, the other is a hand grenade with the pin out. Take your pick ass to who is what. In light of the topic of this thread, it rather boggles me you would post something like this, in an attempt to back up the premise. Especially baffling, is that you think this makes perfect sense. I guess, maybe, it does, if you just want it to. Reality is a rather relative thing, so I'm told. But I've been told a lot of things. The above post told me a lot of things. I've also been told there are other dimensions, that UFOs are real, there were WMDs in Iraq, and Anna Nicole Smith married for love. Your post and your premise fall into the same categories. .
Truly, the leftist mindset is a ... confusing...thing. To claim those who disagree are blind mice, yet require those same people to blindly accept what you say as fact. Do you define your own , blind, acceptance as being better than someone else's? In this case, someone who has conservative beliefs? Truly, I guess my education is lacking ,here, because this "study" and your support of it, only tells me you are guilty of the same shortcomings as those you seek to discredit.
Let's review the current top button issues and see if it correlates with the studies:
First, let's see what the liberals main complaints about Trumps are:
1. Bribing an attorney general - unproven but the charge is based on evidence.
2. Trump University lawsuit - fact.
3. Trump's racism - you can argue if he is racist but there is mountains of evidence he said racially insensitive things. Fact based.
4. Trump's lack of experience/knowledge on running a country. Fact, even Trump admits it.
5. Trump's tendency to get unhinged. Fact, just read his twitter account.
6. His business's bankruptcies. Fact.
7. The harm his policies will do. Fact. You can argue about his policies, but there is no denying the legions of experts who said his policies are very bad ideas.
Now, let's see the conservative's complaints about Hillary:
1. Her health. Fictional, there no facts whatsoever.
2. Her supposed murders. Fictional. Example: somehow a guy died of a serious illness is her fault.
3. Clinton Foundation. Fictional. There is absolutely no evidence that the foundation or Hillary did anything wrong.
4. Her lying. Debatable.
5. Benghazi. Started out as facts but somehow the conservatives managed to turn it fictional with testimony from people who weren't even there and dialog said in the movie repeated as facts.
6. Email. Finally, we get to something that is mostly fact based. Bravo.
7. Her one case defending a criminal. Again, started out as fact but was injected with so many lies that this issue can legitimately qualifies as a lie.
Notice that ALL of the liberals complaints about Trump is facts based.
Notice that ALMOST ALL of the conservatives' complaints about Hillary is Lie based.
And notice one very important thing - how often do you hear a conservative actually debate Hillary's policy??? Almost never right? How often do you see a conservative debate Hillary's record in the Senate?? I've seen it once, and it was a poster trying to lie about her record. Wouldn't you think a former Senator's accomplishment on Capital Hill is important? Not to certain people apparently.
Turns out, those who belief in lies don't really want to debate facts.
.
Is this like a joke?
The health concern is her coughing fits.
The Clintons have Walden University Online. Where is that?
Her lying isn't debatable.You just decided to debate it. Why even put that crap there if its debatable?
You left out Bill's multiple rape accusations which she ruthlessly opposed , quite unlike her feminist rhetoric.
Trumps bankruptcy fact? If you were interested in facts then you would know its part of doing business to limit liability and its generally common for businesses to fail. His investors knew the deal going in and the risk .
Trump isn't perfect by any means but who do you think is going to believe this giant straw man crap besides your senile grandma you wheel in to vote ?
What I find funny is Democrats hate facts. That's aside they make up "facts" like Adolf Hitler did.
I took a left wing sociology course in college. In the jargon of sociologist's Muslims, women, blacks, lesbians, conservatives, liberals, Canadians, military veterans are all "categories."
Now, that is a fact about sociology at the time I took an introduction sociology course.
American liberals are often more conservative than Western European liberals and Putin is moderate Russian that believes in government funded safety nets as American Democrats believe in. So, who or what is a conservative or liberal and how accepted an valid would any study carried out by Christian scientists be believed if the conclusions of the study denegrated and stereotyped Muslims? As this study denegrates and stereotypes conservatives. I have seen over the years liberals use the sciences to place stigma on the category of conservative as socialist Nazi Germany used the sciences to place stigma on the ethnic Jews. Because supposedly science validates ones hate and prejudices. Like the Bell Curve study used to put a stigma on blacks.
Democrats are no more than Christians yapping on about how morally superior and smarter they are than the Muslims who are Republicans.
Here is a fact few to no Democrats will accept. According to the science of biology the human life cycle begins when the female egg is fertilized by sperm (conception). Yet, how many liberals and even liberal doctors and scientist reject this basic truism and biological fact? Nearly all. They prefer to imply no one knows when human life begins and that a woman giving birth to a baby results from apparent "magic."
This is not to say Republicans can't and don't reject "facts" either. But then how we know something is a "fact" delves more into philosophical issues. The physical sciences of chemistry, physics, and cosmology are more grounded in "facts." Biology and neuroscience less so. Psychology almost not at all.
But you find Catholics in the Vatican speaking more positive of Muslims than you do of liberals speaking of conservatives or conservatives speaking of liberals. Contrary to what either liberals or conservatives want to believe the underlying principals of each political school of thought are more philosophical than they are grounded in objective, testable, repeatable "facts."
I've met plenty of bright conservatives. I've met bright liberals too.
In my view the two party system necessitates the demonization of the other. I've heard (not sure how true it is) the so-called "Founding Fathers" of the United States hated political parties.
“I will build a great wall – and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me – and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”
“The beauty of me is that I’m very rich.”
“My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body.”
“I think the only difference between me and the other candidates is that I’m more honest and my women are more beautiful"
"My IQ is one of the highest — and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure; it's not your fault."
Location: Big Island of Hawaii & HOT BuOYS Sailing Vessel
5,277 posts, read 2,800,352 times
Reputation: 1932
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould
I wonder if there is a way. Countless threads on this forum where outlandish claims are refuted with accurate information from reputable sources and it doesn't change the conversation at all.
One candidate has devoted her adult life to making things better, increasing access to medical care for families, improving the treatment of women... and she is constantly accused of doing all this to line her own pockets.
While the other candidate has spent his life lining his own pockets, often by defrauding others. Yet he is touted as the great white hope.
A very fair question.
#1 Realize there is a group of people you can never convince. Some suspect they are paid.
#2 Find the most important threads where a clear wrong doing was shown.
#3 Once every two days go to Google News at news.google.com and do a search for a news article on that subject.
#4 Post a link to that news item.
#5 This brings those important threads back onto page one. Further it is a reality check. If you can find no new news articles, the issue is dead.
.......
Example:
Trump's hiring of Polish workers for $5 an hour where they worked without hardhats and slept inside the building they worked on could be your assignment. Surely this was discussed in this forum. But new readers rarely I past page 2 to see it. Therefore find the thread using Google.
Found one! (Only will be on search results a short time )
Read article write short sentence and pull one sentence or term and cite source:
Author describes in book how Trump was able to get hundreds of hungry Polish workers to demolish building. The "union was under the control of mobsters…"
What I find funny is Democrats hate facts. That's aside they make up "facts" like Adolf Hitler did.
I took a left wing sociology course in college. In the jargon of sociologist's Muslims, women, blacks, lesbians, conservatives, liberals, Canadians, military veterans are all "categories."
Now, that is a fact about sociology at the time I took an introduction sociology course.
American liberals are often more conservative than Western European liberals and Putin is moderate Russian that believes in government funded safety nets as American Democrats believe in. So, who or what is a conservative or liberal and how accepted an valid would any study carried out by Christian scientists be believed if the conclusions of the study denegrated and stereotyped Muslims? As this study denegrates and stereotypes conservatives. I have seen over the years liberals use the sciences to place stigma on the category of conservative as socialist Nazi Germany used the sciences to place stigma on the ethnic Jews. Because supposedly science validates ones hate and prejudices. Like the Bell Curve study used to put a stigma on blacks.
Democrats are no more than Christians yapping on about how morally superior and smarter they are than the Muslims who are Republicans.
Here is a fact few to no Democrats will accept. According to the science of biology the human life cycle begins when the female egg is fertilized by sperm (conception). Yet, how many liberals and even liberal doctors and scientist reject this basic truism and biological fact? Nearly all. They prefer to imply no one knows when human life begins and that a woman giving birth to a baby results from apparent "magic."
This is not to say Republicans can't and don't reject "facts" either. But then how we know something is a "fact" delves more into philosophical issues. The physical sciences of chemistry, physics, and cosmology are more grounded in "facts." Biology and neuroscience less so. Psychology almost not at all.
But you find Catholics in the Vatican speaking more positive of Muslims than you do of liberals speaking of conservatives or conservatives speaking of liberals. Contrary to what either liberals or conservatives want to believe the underlying principals of each political school of thought are more philosophical than they are grounded in objective, testable, repeatable "facts."
I've met plenty of bright conservatives. I've met bright liberals too.
In my view the two party system necessitates the demonization of the other. I've heard (not sure how true it is) the so-called "Founding Fathers" of the United States hated political parties.
You sure you're not a republican??? You regurgitate their talking points as well as any I've seen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
