Mightysword wrote: ↑Sat, 8. Dec 18, 06:25
...See, maybe I'm weird in this regard, but I don't see why that works for other people. When I see or hear something reasonable, I don't insistingly fact-check it. But when I do, then my fact-checking mechanism gets trigger. The stronger I feel about something, the more I inclined to doubt it. And this work both way: I don't compulsively believe in an "good" number, neither I impulsively reject a "bad" number either. For example:
- If I hear someone saying "Trump is nowhere a good businessman he claims to be, he's average at best or just a little above average" I would incline to agree and that's that. Even though I have been listing Trump's achievements, I'm also aware of his other short coming. But when I see something like this:
Bishop149 wrote: ↑Tue, 4. Dec 18, 22:21
As I alluded to earlier he would be richer than he is today if he had simply taken the
money his dad left him, invested it in the stockmarket (in the safest possible way) and then
buggered off to spend his life playing golf.
Zero business acumen required,
by applying his he has made himself poorer . . . . and has only avoided complete personal bankruptcy
thanks to the grace and favor of the government.
It make me go: huh, really? Let's investigate to see if that is true, because it sounds too ridiculous to be true. After the investigation, not only I conclude the statement are entirely not true, it also makes me realize I actually have not given Trump enough credits before. So it back fire.
I didn't say it works... It's just something that people tend to do.
It's kind of like asking someone to loan you $500 and then, when refused, asking them for $20... They may not believe the person is a Saint, but surely if everyone is calling them one then there must be something good about them, right?
...Am I like ... the only one with this kind of psy-profile?
Of course not.
In hindsight, that election was one of the worst in terms of a worthy candidate being put forth. What happened? The Republicans freaked-the-heck-out when Hillary's campaign appeared to be practically unopposed. There was no way that Bernie Sanders was going to win the nomination - He was too Left for the Democrats and, in my opinion, was drinking a bit too much of his own Kool Aid being buoyed by a core support group of mostly younger people, who don't tend to vote despite their enthusiasm. (It reminded me a lot of Ron Paul's campaign bid.)
We ended up with a candidate that had a base reminiscent of the Tea Party, with enthusiastic popular support from a large base, but a bit of an ephemeral agenda. "Ephemeral" because he said a lot of stuff, but a lot of it either didn't make sense or couldn't realistically be accomplished. But, it always raised the spectre of "A Great Enemy" to fight.
Much like you, I try to fact-check everything that sounds... fishy. But, I'm not a professional Political Science guy who follows all the campaigns and knows the stories of all the people involved. I can't as easily detect when something is "fishy." Neither can most people. And, all those little fishy things that aren't quite true that get pushed out the door to the voting public? They add up. They keep piling on top of each other until they form the basis of an opinion.
...So again ... tell me where's the difference?
Well, who said there's a difference? I simply offered the qualifier of "most people." That includes politicians and elected officials, since most of them are people too.
I know it's not directed at me, but - What do
you think achieved that?
Was it that these people voted for Trump because he is a natural loadstone that attracts the support of people? Or, did something help draw that support to him? He had a "campaign," right? There was marketing and "getting the message out" and "cast your vote for Trump if you want your problems solved" and all that, right? And, of course, there was the constant demonizing of Hillary, too, influencing the "swing vote." If it had been any other candidate, the after action report would be the same. So, it wasn't purely due to some "Trump Factor" and marketing, social media, other media coverage, certainly, without a doubt, had a strong influence.
It's worth noting that Hillary won the
Popular Vote. So, would it be fair to dare you to opine upon that with a straight face?
More people voted for Hillary than Trump. That means that Hillary won, right? ...
I don't know wtf I would have felt if Hillary had won. I was certainly not in favor of her candidacy. But, she
did win the popular vote, so if you maintain that Trump's victory "means something" then what does her unheralded "victory" mean?
From what I recall of the testimony of the heads of various Intelligence agencies before Congress, Russia's meddling did not have a "signficant" impact on the election, according to their statements. But, it had some sort of effect, somewhere.
Edit-Add: Related to "extremes" discussed above:
Clearly, this is an "extreme" article. It's in a decently well-known rag "The Atlantic." And, it's extreme, seemingly with no reason for why it's covering the topic:
Presidential Emergency Powers - What could Trump do if he declared a National Emergency.
Basically, if Trump declared a "National Emergency" then a host of dictatorial powers come into play. This is the stuff of nightmares for those who worry about Trump... And, that's probably exactly why they created the article.
So, will this "extreme" idea be picked up by others and given broader exposure? Is it "too extreme" for other agencies to address? We'll see. And, who knows, maybe Trump would do it just because he can? And, then what?