DunderMifflin Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, Zorral said: Such a shyte job that thousands turns themselves into knots hoping to be called. Thousands, Out of how many million that are eligible to run? Gotta be close to 100 million? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 13 minutes ago, Mexal said: We'll see. White House hasn't said anything. None of his surrogates has answered any questions and over the weekend, Flynn was with Trump and co at Mar-a-Lago when the North Korea missile test happened. Congress really needs to get involved which it seems they are trying to do, at least the Dems. Turns out nothing is going to happen. Flynn reportedly called Pence and apologized and that's that. Nunes actually blamed leakers for this issue instead of the fact that Flynn talked with the Russian Ambassador about removing sanctions while Obama was still President and lied about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 1 minute ago, DunderMifflin said: Thousands, Out of how many million that are eligible to run? Gotta be close to 100 million? Many want but few are chosen. Also eligible is a relative term, never more so than this last one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 1 hour ago, DunderMifflin said: Are you saying that you've discovered something that shows that Democrats are less likely to believe conspiracies than Republicans are? The only claim I'm making is that it has little to nothing backing it up. 1 hour ago, DunderMifflin said: There isnt much out there. Deservedly so, I don't think it's a question that deserves very much. In the end its just more of a "them guys over there are the stupids" What is out there certainly doesn't point to any superiority in Democrats. (Unless theres info I'm not aware of) admittedly my info is going on a 3-5 years old at this point. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2013/09/17/conspiracy-theory-political-attitudes/ https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/120815791/Fairleigh-Dickinson-poll-on-conspiracy-theories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, mormont said: Sorry, I don't know if this is a yes or no. Are you making a case that Democrats are less likely to believe conspiracies than Republicans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Ormond said: So here is a link to a review article on the psychology of conspiracy beliefs, for those of you really interested in the science:. (I myself am not a complete fan of CSICOP, the site where this article is posted, but this particular article seems to be a good analysis of the issue to me): http://www.csicop.org/si/show/crazy_beliefs_sane_believers_toward_a_cognitive_psychology_of_conspiracy_id DunderMuffin is correct that the research does NOT show that there is a general tendency for belief in conspiracies based on political affiliation per se, but that those affiliations do predict WHICH conspiracy theories one believes in: Racial and political affiliation also are not associated with general conspiratorial ideation, but do appear to predict belief in particular conspiracies to which one’s group may be vulnerable (e.g. Abakalina-Paap et al. 1999)—an important pattern to which we will return later. For example, African Americans, much more so than whites, endorse conspiracy theories in which African Americans are the targets—such as the claim that the United States government created the HIV virus to exterminate the black population (e.g. Bogart and Thorburn 2003). The general finding later in the article is that those who perceive themselves as being powerless, alienated, and liable to be exploited are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. On the one hand, that would predict that Democrats and liberals will become more prone to believing in conspiracy theories during the Trump administration than the used to be, and Republicans and conservatives less, because who is perceived as being "in power" has changed. On the other hand, to the extent that being a "Trump voter" correlates with being less educated, rural, and alienated from modern culture as a whole, one would expect that part of the Republican party to maintain a higher belief in conspiracy theories, even though the President is now theoretically "on their side." Wouldn't Locus of Control be a better predictor for conspiracy theories than party membership? I have some problems imagining a conspiracy theorist with an internal Locus of Control. On a second thought socioeconomic status is probably already correlated with it. So that idea is hardly original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 20 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: Sorry, I don't know if this is a yes or no. Are you making a case that Democrats are less likely to believe conspiracies than Republicans? 56% of Democrats vs 75% of Republicans, is certainly strongly suggestive of a significant difference, and this is from a link you actually posted. If you bump into an average Democrat on the street they are less likely to believe in a randomly selected conspiracy theory than if you bump into an average Republican on the street. And if you bump into a well informed Democrat on the street they are unlikely to believe in a randomly selected conspiracy theory, whereas if you bump into a well informed Republican they are as likely to believe in a randomly selected conspiracy theory as an average Republican. So your links tend to suggest Democrats are less likely to believe in conspiracy theories. Even if both lots do have large numbers who seem to believe in at least one, there is still a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 44 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: Sorry, I don't know if this is a yes or no. It's highlighting the claim you made. And you know that very well: you understood it fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivin Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Jesus Christ, people. Don't engage the moron. I just wasted five minutes of my life skipping over the asinine knot you've allowed yourselves to be twisted into over literal nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 26 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: 56% of Democrats vs 75% of Republicans, is certainly strongly suggestive of a significant difference, and this is from a link you actually posted. If you bump into an average Democrat on the street they are less likely to believe in a randomly selected conspiracy theory than if you bump into an average Republican on the street. And if you bump into a well informed Democrat on the street they are unlikely to believe in a randomly selected conspiracy theory, whereas if you bump into a well informed Republican they are as likely to believe in a randomly selected conspiracy theory as an average Republican. So your links tend to suggest Democrats are less likely to believe in conspiracy theories. Even if both lots do have large numbers who seem to believe in at least one, there is still a difference. The 56% vs 75% is based on 4 specific questions. Not random questions. It's a pretty useless question considering the only reason people want an answer is just so an extremely vaguely defined group of people can jerk themselves off for being better than another group of extremely vaguely defined people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 4 minutes ago, mormont said: It's highlighting the claim you made. And you know that very well: you understood it fine. What claim? That there's nothing backing up the claim of Democrats being less likely to believe conspiracy? I'm still going with that. Or is your criticism here that I have failed to debunk and unproven claim? In that case, well done. But the original unproven claim is still there unproven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 2 hours ago, mormont said: Now, the second link actually shows a marked difference (56% of Dems vs 75% of Reps think at least one of the theories in question is likely true). It also points out another significant difference: So the second link doesn't actually support your claim, in fact it undermines it. Charitably, we might assume you misremembered or skimmed it. The first link is to an article discussing the research into group differences but not directly presenting any evidence on that issue. Following the two links it cites as evidence, one goes to a historical survey of letters to the NYT, which isn't all that strong as evidence of wider attitudes IMO. The other goes to... the second link you posted. ETA - thanks Ormond for the much more informative link. The second link is consistent with Dundermifflins interpretation, which is that political affiliation predicts which conspiracies a person tends to believe in. And that political affiliation by itself does not appear to be correlated with a likelihood of believing in conspiracy theories. It should be obvious that you can't extrapolate to a general conclusion that Democrats are less likely to believe in conspiracy theories than Republicans based on questions about 4 different conspiracy theories. You can see that the numbers vary significantly with the specific conspiracy asked about, so it's very likely that if you asked about 4 other conspiracies you'd get very different results. The poll was never designed to answer that question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 4 minutes ago, WinterFox said: Jesus Christ, people. Don't engage the moron. I just wasted five minutes of my life skipping over the asinine knot you've allowed yourselves to be twisted into over literal nonsense. Whoever you are calling a moron should be offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 13, 2017 Author Share Posted February 13, 2017 3 hours ago, Relic said: Long time Trump flunkie Joe Scarborough is starting to realize that something is horribly wrong. A little late Joe, you fucknut. http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/-what-stephen-miller-said-should-worry-everyone-875968067895?cid=playlist%3D480866%26cid%3Dsm_fb_mojoe I have to watch that show every morning for an hour because it's the least bad option at the gym. It's insane how much he and Mika swing from episode to episode. It's almost like the themes randomly switch from praising Trump to bashing Trump, and the change usually doesn't have that much correlation to the news of the day. 2 hours ago, Mexal said: For the record, we're now coming up on almost 4 days since news broke from Washington Post that Flynn lied about his call with the Russian Ambassador and during this time, we have not had a single statement from the White House nor has there been a question allowed to be asked about it at the press conferences. I saw a couple of your more recent posts, but I still think there's a good chance he doesn't last very long. He isn't very well liked by most people in the Defense Department (unlike Mattis who is beloved by most of his peers and fellow servicemen) and he has a tendency to make rather large mistakes on a wide spread of issues. I give him six months tops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said: I saw a couple of your more recent posts, but I still think there's a good chance he doesn't last very long. He isn't very well liked by most people in the Defense Department (unlike Mattis who is beloved by most of his peers and fellow servicemen) and he has a tendency to make rather large mistakes on a wide spread of issues. I give him six months tops. I'm very skeptical, because unless Flynn becomes a major actual problem for Trump (like Christie was with Kushner) I don't see Trump admitting he made any mistakes or errors. It shows weakness. And Flynn is ideologically quite happy with Bannon and the like, believes in Islam being a massive threat, and is otherwise perfectly suited to be the Russian toady. I guess the other way to put it is this: Flynn would be in major trouble if the GOP had even the slightest spine or ethics, but they don't. So he won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10155085110276108&substory_index=0&id=6028461107&_ft_=top_level_post_id.10155085110276108%3Atl_objid.10155085110276108%3Athrowback_story_fbid.10155085110276108&__tn__=%2C%3B God dammit Moby. No one listens to techno-crats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I give you the early front-runner for Most Kickable Face 2017, Stephen Miller... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 13, 2017 Author Share Posted February 13, 2017 6 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I'm very skeptical, because unless Flynn becomes a major actual problem for Trump (like Christie was with Kushner) I don't see Trump admitting he made any mistakes or errors. It shows weakness. And Flynn is ideologically quite happy with Bannon and the like, believes in Islam being a massive threat, and is otherwise perfectly suited to be the Russian toady. True. If it were to happen I'd expect Flynn to step down rather than Trump admitting any type of mistake. 8 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I guess the other way to put it is this: Flynn would be in major trouble if the GOP had even the slightest spine or ethics, but they don't. So he won't. Yeah that's been the most disappointing part about this whole affair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 13, 2017 Author Share Posted February 13, 2017 1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: I give you the early front-runner for Most Kickable Face 2017, Stephen Miller... I was joking with some buddies over the weekend that he's what I imaged Voldemort to look like pre-snake nose era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: I was joking with some buddies over the weekend that he's what I imaged Voldemort to look like pre-snake nose era. Yeah, I guess we should give these guys some credit for having the decency to look evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.