Donald Trump

[Mr Kobayashi]

I think ‘reasonable’ is stretching it. ‘Barely arguable’ might (very generously) just about cover it.

In the context of if you ignore what they'd previously said about Biden without hesitation or consideration. Obviously it's not reasonable to hold two opposing views for the same situation because it's "your team".

The flatfooted soldiers are burden to other soldiers is a reasonable lay person view.

The detail of the (alleged) fabrication of Trump's medical issues wasn't delved into so it wouldn't be unreasonable to take the claims of an ailment at face value.

These people do possess critical thinking, they just choose not to exercise it.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

In the context of if you ignore what they'd previously said about Biden without hesitation or consideration. Obviously it's not reasonable to hold two opposing views for the same situation because it's "your team".

The flatfooted soldiers are burden to other soldiers is a reasonable lay person view.

The detail of the (alleged) fabrication of Trump's medical issues wasn't delved into so it wouldn't be unreasonable to take the claims of an ailment at face value.

These people do possess critical thinking, they just choose not to exercise it.

The first two paragraphs are fair comment, but I fail to see the practical distinction between possessing critical thinking skills and not exercising them and not possessing them at all, unless you are willing to do something about the former - and the continued rise of social media means the former is increasingly prevalent.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

But they do have critical thinking. They had reasonable counterarguments to defend Trump (flat foot, my father had affairs), they are just choosing to be hypocrites because Trump upholds their obnoxious world views and is their "team". Same as the agenda-ists or almost all blues complaining about reasonable decisions made in favour of the rags.

I'd be interested in the outtakes from the people who rumbled them. But generally with these vox pop type questionnaires, the people that are most interesting are those who say outlandish and even outrageous things.

It's probably not normal to speak to journalists and say something that might land you in hot water or attract extra attention for no obvious benefit.

Agree on the selective vox pops, it’s usually 2-3 people from an entire day’s filming. Plus you’re probably right insofar as saying they possess the ability to think critically but choose not to exercise it in specific ways.

That said, I think that if you were to teach critical thinking at an earlier age then it might reduce (but not completely eliminate, as history shows) the number of people who fall into these patterns of cult-like behaviour in the first place.

At some point in the past these people made a decision in their brain to ignore the cognitive dissonance and obvious hypocrisy, I can imagine that with the right mental equipment they could have had a chance to avert solidifying that process.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

The first two paragraphs are fair comment, but I fail to see the practical distinction between possessing critical thinking skills and not exercising them and not possessing them at all, unless you are willing to do something about the former - and the continued rise of social media means the former is increasingly prevalent.

How do we know that it's social media that's the cause?

Fox News or One America

Most people will consume uncritical news biased content in one form and take it face value because they don't have time to dedicate to "research", we all do that, but we don't do it all the time.

Trump appeals to people because of his MAGA narrative, it's an emotional argument, critically thinking about his personal life, selfishness and hypocrisy doesn't actually counter MAGA.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Agree on the selective vox pops, it’s usually 2-3 people from an entire day’s filming. Plus you’re probably right insofar as saying they possess the ability to think critically but choose not to exercise it in specific ways.

That said, I think that if you were to teach critical thinking at an earlier age then it might reduce (but not completely eliminate, as history shows) the number of people who fall into these patterns of cult-like behaviour in the first place.

At some point in the past these people made a decision in their brain to ignore the cognitive dissonance and obvious hypocrisy, I can imagine that with the right mental equipment they could have had a chance to avert solidifying that process.

I don't think it always works like that. The hesitation by some when the question swapped from Biden to Trump seems to indicate they make those decisions in real time.

There are countless posts by people on here moaning about decisions, and some have those will consciously known at the time that they are being biased because they want the rags to lose or city to win.

It's much easier to change your views when you don't have to fess up and take the slack for being wrong.

Critical thinking might ensure they are better able to question the simplistic world views spread by Trump but it doesn't cancel out the emotional pull of his narrative.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

The first two paragraphs are fair comment, but I fail to see the practical distinction between possessing critical thinking skills and not exercising them and not possessing them at all, unless you are willing to do something about the former - and the continued rise of social media means the former is increasingly prevalent.

I don’t see it either. Cognitive dissonance has been around for eons. Imagine being a lifelong critical-thinking Republican and supporting conservative but not fascist principles and then being offered a choice between Trump and “the other side” which you’ve staunchly opposed based on logic not emotion your entire life. And like nearly every American not born elsewhere you’ve always taken democracy for granted. To suddenly shift to Biden or any Democrat means that maybe you must now leap to a side you’ve belittled or disparaged for years or decades even if just in your own head. It’s a hard leap for some, critical thinker or not. The practical result is either a reluctant or hidden Republican vote and a disappearance from discourse. That’s what we’re all worried about.

But I also agree that social media has led to an elevation of extremist views (all extremists btw) because the bully pulpit is no longer earned by experience, expertise, track record or breadth of the denominator but simply by access to the internet. I hate that about social media but gradually I have learned (or maybe becomes more comfortable) that articulation does not necessarily mean depth or breadth of belief across a wider spectrum of people. Sometimes it does, but not always. I do think there is extremist overload and my point above can work both ways — loud Republicans becoming secret Democratic voters for fear of losing face because they are repulsed by Trump. And the points here on polls continually overestimating Trump’s support when put to the electorate underscores that I think.

That to me is why this election is so frightening and so hard to call: public and private intentions seem mismatched by voters on both sides of the aisle.

 

[bluethrunthru]

 

[TinFoilHat]

MSNBC treading on eggshells. Full on erection for Biden the same way Faux used to be with trump. Trying to promote Hayley without it affecting their preferred candidates numbers.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

Amazing. And all it took was a three quarters of a billion dollars defamation lawsuit.

 

[laserblue]

The most laughable thing is that Trump is using Truth The Vote as a reference to "prove" the election was stolen. This is the same Truth The Vote that was recently summoned to court to provide evidence of their allegations of a rigged election. Their representatives admitted under oath that they had no evidence and just made it all up.