Play date

'@Dan' How do you upload images into the comments here?

@LogicMeister
The usual bbcode tags. [ img ] [ /img ] no spaces.

Although it's finicky about parsing the url. Any modifiers after the file extension is likely to be dropped.

'@Dan' Thanks :)

@Dan I've seen a lot of anti, pro and neutral comics and sayings on Trump.

But this? This perfectly encapsulates him in a way I think few can deny. Even if you like him or think he's a good president, there is no denying that his brain is fickle and extremely egotistical, seemingly on a autopilot of things being his and his idea.

@Dan So, so true to his egotistical personality.
If something good has been done, Trump will take the lion's share of the credit.
If Trump did not create it, it must therefore be bad, and he will take steps to destroy it.
If Trump cannot control it, blame Canada.
If anyone presents an alternate view, fake news.

@Teeka
Trump does something good, Media tries to spin it so it's a bad thing
Trump does something bad, media jumps on him like it's the last domino to topple him
Moon Jae-in publicly credited Trump for his involvement in making these peace talks happen
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/10/moon-jae-in-credits-donald-trump-for-inter-korea-talks
So no this is not his ego running wild, you people act like North and South Korea were already heading towards this and Trump dropped in last second and said "You two make peace now!"

@SomeRandomSmuck
Sure... you tell yourself that.
The rest of the world actually knows how incompetent the american leader is.

As an American, I literally have never related more to brother America than in this moment.

@marcuszer0 Yep, remember when Brother America was the embarrassing one?

@marcuszer0 *Sees all the upvotes* By the nines! Did someone put something in my mead?

I believe the general consensus is we're living in an onion article.

@Tudpool An onion article is more believable. Must explain why people keep falling for them as 'real news'...

Today Babyhands-In-Chief did an interview with FOX talking about how Kim Jong Un is so respected in his country, that when he speaks people sit right up and listen... and how he wants that from his people.

Anybody with the tiniest bit of world knowledge knows that Kim's people sit right up, because they'll be shot or imprisoned if they don't.

This is not funny. This is not a joking matter. This is a frickin' line in the sand, where people --Democrat AND Republican-- need to formally chastise him, and say "No, we do NOT do that sort of thing in America." And if you don't think he's serious about this (because SOMEONE got through to him and made him say it was a joke), remember that he bullied the NFL into making patriotic displays of standing for the anthem mandatory. THIS IS NOT NORMAL, THIS IS NOT RIGHT!!!

@TuxedoCartman

I didn't think he was that bloody stupid!!! Unfortunately I doubt the ego will accept any suggestion its capable of error. If he is forced to say 'sorry' or as near as anyone can get him to such a statement I would expect more heads to fall in the government and he will be plotting revenge for such an humiliation, which would be the only thing that I think matters to him.

@stevep59 It looks like a classic case of the Dunning - Kruger effect. He is too stupid to realize he is stupid. I desperately hope I will some day have to admit I underestimated him but it doesn't seem very likely right now.

@Rogers

Possibly less stupid [in terms of being very not intelligent] than so narcissistic and spoiled that he doesn't realise how stupid he is and so used to being abusive and contemptuous of others that he's used to ignoring and when he can sacking anyone who diesagrees with him. He's just find the concept that he could be wrong too alien to accept.

@stevep59 You are probably right. He often behaves like a typical spoiled man child.

@TuxedoCartman Of course a politician wants that but a Narcissist person like Trump especially wants it. "Adoration" and obedience. I do not think Trump meant he wishes to threaten the people to form in line but he definitely wishes people would simply play ball and " see his brilliance ".

@TuxedoCartman "his people"

As a person who has been watching this whole show from day one, I can say that this accurately portrays wtf is going on. Most Americans at this point are just watching this going down, eyes wide with bewilderment, and wondering if this is that universe where everything is a parody of itself.

@Lichruler What's especially bewildering is that just about any one scandal the Orange has been involved in would have likely brought down any other US president. He just keeps piling them on.

@ShoggothOnTheRoof Yeah, it's not like one President's administration was caught selling weapons to what was ostensibly an enemy nation and using the proceeds to finance pseudo-military organizations... some of which went on to turn to narcotics for income, with the blessing of the CIA, regardless of how it impacted US citizens.

@Dena Oh, but he didn't remember doing that, so it didn't count.

@Dena

But that was Saint Reagan, hallowed be his name! Of course he could do no wrong!

(And one can add that it was done in violation of the Iran embargo and behind the back of not only the American people, but Congress, which had passed a law expressly forbidding the Reagan administration from supporting the Contras.
So the Reagan administration broke not one, but several both US and international laws in the process.)

(So I agree with you. @ShoggothOnTheRoof 's comment should read "any Democratic president". Republican president can weather much more scandal, as their voters conveniently don't give a shit about what they do. Hell, even Nixon had a pretty firm support amongst Republican voters until the Republicans in Congress turned on him when the tapes where released.
But that was back in the days when even Republican politicians had a spine and a sense of shame. Now that's long gone of course.)

@Lichruler Well, there's no difference here in Europe. We watch the latest news of Trump and are either in a "wtf"-state or grab our popcorn. What the hell is going on on the other side of the atlantic ocean?! And why is Trumps supporter base still so strong? Are his sups so... idk dump or ignorant or are they just persons like the Joker, who just want to see the world burn?

Trump could end the world order, which exist since the late 40s and it appears to me, that his supporters and the passive republicans (not those who fight against Trump) are like "Pff. Who cares?" This is simply wrong. Tell me: Why is Trump still in office? There should be enough people in the US, who can start a rebellion against him.

@IcePhoenix Except the people who most hate Trump are the same people who hate the idea of common citizens owning firearms, and unarmed rebellions tend to fail. Their best bet would be to wait it out till Nov. 2020 & then see if there really are "enough people in the US" who'd vote for the other candidate.

@Newnetherlander That's a good point, Sir.

Hopefully, the world won't have to wait until 2020... A nice little impeachment for the sake of peace and rationality would be fine. But... it's very unlikely so... Where's my popcorn? And where are my cat and my monocle?

@Newnetherlander Rebelion? It takes one single bullet to end a man, no matter who he is. Although statistically, people like Trump are a lot more prone to shoot that bullet than to get it...

@Newnetherlander

No revolution or rebellion in history ever won because it was well armed - that's just one of many stupid talking point put out by the NRA to defend their employers the gun manufacturers "right" to make huge profits selling guns.

Look at all of human history, and what you'll find is that when revolutions or rebellions against a government do succeed, it's because they won the support of the nations own army (or a foreign army, supporting them).

That's because no matter how well armed a civilian militia is, they will still not defeat professional soldiers with proper training and discipline.

And that's especially true today of course, when military technology is so much more advanced then small arms.

If the pathetic US militias that dream about taking on the US government ever rose up, they wouldn't stand a chance of course against tanks, jet fighters or cruise missiles.
No matter how many AR-15's they stockpile in the bunkers in their backyards.

But every gun they buy nets the weapons manufacturers a nice little profit - which is why they have their lobbyist the NRA push the message to keep buying more guns, any way they can.

Including pushing that nonsense about people arming themselves to take on the government.

And yes - there is definitely "enough people in the US" to swamp the Republicans completely.

The US has extremely low voter turn out rates compared to most other democracies - in the last presidential election only 55,7% of the electorate actually voted.
But almost all Republican voters did - because the Republicans have been driving their supporters to the polls with the use of fear for decades.

Republican voters fed on Fox News and other right-wing media are told that life as they know it will end if the Democrats win anything.
Democrats healthcare will kill grandma and they'll confiscate all guns, they'll flood the country with Muslim extremists and legalize bestiality and a thousand other horrible things will happen.
So Republicans vote as if their life depended on it - because they believe it does.

So the vast amount of the people that doesn't vote aren't Republicans and if they'll ever vote it will be for the Democrats.
And Trump just might be awful enough to get more of them to the polls. This November will give an indication of that.

@Nisse_Hult : I admire your typing skills; I'm more of the "hunt & peck" school myself.

@Newnetherlander

I never knew it was called that in English, so thank you for that information!

In Swedish that kind of typing is called "pekfingervalsen", which would translate into "the index finger waltz".

Originally the name was used for short pieces of piano music, played only with the index fingers and meant for beginners to practice their technique on.
But when typewriters became commonplace the name was reused for the same style of typing as well.

@Nisse_Hult : I suppose it does have one advantage; No choice but to keep comments short! Otherwise something the length of any of your usual postings would take me the better part of a day!

@Newnetherlander

I fail to see the "advantage" of keeping comments short.
Surely the goal should be to post relevant points and rational arguments - not to just post as short a text as possible?

But unfortunately it's a common stance these days - the belief that shorter texts automatically are better.

But obviously that's not true.

Just look at Trump's twitter feed for confirmation of that fact...

@Nisse_Hult : In my case it's not so much a matter of choice to make short comments, but necessity, so I try to make the best of it.

@Newnetherlander

Yes, that seems to be the case in your case.

My point was just that I wouldn't generally call it an "advantage" to keep comments short.

@Nisse_Hult "Almost all Republican voters voted".
Um... yes.

But the belief that the people who don't vote will vote Democrat if they ever do doesn't seem very well-founded to me. According to I Somin, Democracy and Political Ignorance, in the 2000 election, fewer than half of all citizens knew which candidate was more in favour of environmental regulation. This isn't even an unusual result. The fact is that most people in the US do not know or care very much about politics or economics.

Even of those who do know, most are more inclined to support a 'team' than actually examine the issue - the average Democrat is even less informed than the average Republican (S Althaus, Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics, 2003). There is no reason to suppose that the silent majority would be Democrat.

@Xaphan

""Almost all Republican voters voted".
Um... yes."

You're right - we really should have this conversation in Swedish instead.
Because obviously your Swedish is much better then my English - right?

"But the belief that the people who don't vote will vote Democrat if they ever do doesn't seem very well-founded to me. According to I Somin, Democracy and Political Ignorance, in the 2000 election, fewer than half of all citizens knew which candidate was more in favour of environmental regulation. This isn't even an unusual result. The fact is that most people in the US do not know or care very much about politics or economics."

It's a very well founded and well known fact in political science - and by both political parties.

Which is why the Republicans engage in widespread voter suppression in numerous states. They know full well that a higher voter turn-out rate is bad for their party and thus they seek to create as many obstacles as possible for voters they believe to be leaning Democratic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States

And yes, it's also a well known fact that Americans are poorly informed about many issues - including politics. Their appallingly bad school system is to blame for that, as well as the extreme economic inequality and their historical tradition of anti-intellectualism (a tradition championed by the Republicans today, by the way).

All of these factors (and more) cooperate to make the US electorate the most badly informed, most disillusioned of any of the western democracies.
Which is precisely what the Republicans want - as it suppresses voter turn-out.

"Even of those who do know, most are more inclined to support a 'team' than actually examine the issue - the average Democrat is even less informed than the average Republican (S Althaus, Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics, 2003). There is no reason to suppose that the silent majority would be Democrat."

Yes the average Republican is more knowledgeable on basic survey questions, like "Which party is generally considered more supportive of oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge?" - which is explained by political science by the different make-up of the different parties.

As Pew writes:

"The partisan gaps in knowledge are at least partly a consequence of demographic differences. On average, Republicans are older and more affluent than either Democrats or independents, and both of these are associated with knowledge about the parties positions and leaders."

http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/#partisan-differences-in-knowledge

But, if you look at the different parties policies you quickly realize that a majority of Republican voters are in fact voting for policies that in no way benefit themselves, but rather only hurt their own economic interests.

The giant tax-cut the Republicans just past for instance - the one that will give huge tax breaks to corporations and wealthy AF individuals, but gives at best crumbs to tens of millions of Republican voters - while increasing the already huge US deficit by 1,5 trillion dollars.

The Republican answer to solving this problem is twofold:

1) Ignore the deficit and claim that tax cuts always pay for themselves (which has been proven time and again isn't true at all)
2) Slash government spending in the area of so called "entitlements" (which will only hurt the poor - which are the ones who need those program, and of which many millions vote Republican)

So in short:

Yes, the American electorate is as a whole less informed about politics then the electorate in any other western democracy.
The Republican voter collective is older and more affluent, which makes part of it slightly more knowledgeable then the Democratic voter collective (and presumably, non voters).
But many millions of Republican voters are actively supporting policies that screw themselves economically - which obviously isn't a rational or informed thing to do.

But they do so because they're fed fear based propaganda that distracts their attention from the real issues towards made up bullshit like Obamacare "death panels", kneeling during the national anthem or lies about an "invasion" of immigrants, while the influx of immigrants in fact is much lower then a decade ago:
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/06/25/illegal-border-crossers-not-the-invasion-trump-paints/

This fear based propaganda has been pushed for the last decades by the right and it's safe to assume that anyone that could be reached by it and is susceptible to it has already succumb to it.

If you're told and believe that life as you know it will end if you don't vote for the Republicans, you obviously do.

So yes, there is every reason to believe that the silent majority would not support the Republicans.
Now if it's ever possible to activate these inactive voters remain to be seen - but if they do awaken, that certainly won't help the Republicans - that much we know.

This truth is obviously not what you'll hear if you listen to the right-wing propaganda machine of course, but it's commonly accepted knowledge in the field of political science and in both parties.

Which is also why the Republicans work as hard as they do on suppressing the vote. They know full well that higher turn-out rates are generally bad for them.

@Nisse_Hult

"You're right - we really should have this conversation in Swedish instead.
Because obviously your Swedish is much better then my English - right?"

Oh relax, I was just pointing out that you were setting up a false dichotomy between 'Republican voter' and 'leans Democrat'. Your English is fine. If you want noone to understand the conversation, though, we could have it in Irish?

"It's a very well founded and well known fact in political science - and by both political parties.

Which is why the Republicans engage in widespread voter suppression in numerous states."

Yes, I am aware of that - and it means that there is a group of Americans who would like to vote but can't. But that group doesn't nearly cover all the people who don't vote - and I was objecting to "So the vast amount of the people that doesn't vote aren't Republicans and if they'll ever vote it will be for the Democrats.". Voter suppression doesn't account for a majority of the 55% of America that didn't vote. Honestly, I doubt it accounts for 5.5%.

Besides, we were talking about people who don't vote but might. Not the people prevented from voting by unjust laws.

(I don't entirely agree with what you said, but that's off-topic.)

So, if it is a well known fact amongst political scientists that people who don't vote will vote Democrat, I trust you have some kind of source? Political scientists do at least tend to write down their 'well known facts' somewhere.

"And yes, it's also a well known fact that Americans are poorly informed about many issues - including politics. Their appallingly bad school system is to blame for that, "

Don't get too cocky, most countries get similar results. Yes, America is particularly bad. But it's by no means an outlier. It is simply not worth most people's time to keep up with politics. As shown by the fact that the correlation between political knowledge and education isn't actually that strong once you account for demographic factors (and it's absolutely dwarfed by the strongest correlation, which is with the degree to which one finds politics interesting). No citations here, since you're the one making the claim (that the USA is worse than other democracies), so you're the one who needs evidence if you want to support it.

In any case, being better informed about politics doesn't correlate with being on the Left. If anything, it correlates with being more Libertarian (high-information voters are more concerned with both economic and personal freedom according to, f.e., S Althaus, Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics, 2003).

"which is explained by political science by the different make-up of the different parties."

Well... yes. Though I'd point out that Pew only claims that part of the difference is due to demographic factors.

I'm not claiming that Republicans are Republican *because* they're better informed. Like I said, that trend seems to be towards the Libertarians (which probably explains why they do so badly). But the reason for the gap doesn't change the fact that the image of Republicans as ignorant and paranoid, whilst possibly true, applies at least as well to the Democrats.

"But, if you look at the different parties policies you quickly realize that a majority of Republican voters are in fact voting for policies that in no way benefit themselves, but rather only hurt their own economic interests."

This has actually been studied a *lot*. So I'll just give you a couple of citations or we'll be here all day. According to research such as D Chong Degrees of Rationality in Politics and L Huddy, J Jones and R Chard, Compassion vs. Self-interest: Support for Old-Age Programs among the Non-Elderly, 2001, pretty much *no* voter is self-interested. In general, the members of the electorate (both Democrat and Republican) genuinely do seem to vote for what they believe to be in the national interest. To me, this doesn't really seem like a bad thing, tbh.

So no, the majority of Republicans voting against their own interests is simply not unexpected behaviour in any way. By itself, it indicates neither lack of information, nor lack of rationality. If anything, it indicates a lack of selfishness.

"But they do so because they're fed fear based propaganda that distracts their attention from the real issues towards made up bullshit like Obamacare "death panels", kneeling during the national anthem or lies about an "invasion" of immigrants, "

That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

Honestly, that's probably true of certain Republicans - but I really doubt the assessment of a low-information Democrat would be any better. Based on that Pew article, 54% of them might be voting to reduced the size of the government.

Again, it doesn't matter *why* the Republicans are better informed, it's simply a fact that they do tend to be, and in general, the better informed someone is, the less likely they are to be voting for a reason that isn't true.

Oh, related, my understanding is that the D-R gap is still there when you compare the median scores on quizzes like that one. Which should at least significantly reduce the influence of wealth. Though if that *wasn't* the case, and it really was just a small group dragging everyone else up, that would imply that almost all high-information voters would have to be Republican (since there are so few high-information voters to start with, you need a lot of them to significantly influence the average). Which, since voters aren't selfish, would actually be a solid reason to think the Republicans might be right. In the same way that when pretty much everyone who knows a lot about science says that global warming is a thing, you listen.

"This fear based propaganda has been pushed for the last decades by the right and it's safe to assume that anyone that could be reached by it and is susceptible to it has already succumbed to it."

[Citation needed]

Especially since a lot of non-voters probably don't bother with boring politics stuff long enough for said propaganda to reach them. Even a steady diet of Brietbart would probably tell you which side are the baby-killers who want to make Our Brave Soldiers fight ISIS with sticks and stones. And yet you'll note that on the survey you linked, a lot of people simply didn't know the answers. Fox News can't influence you if you never watch it and skip all the links on Facebook because politics is boring.

"If you're told and believe that life as you know it will end if you don't vote for the Republicans, you obviously do."

Not really. Your chances of actually influencing the outcome of an election in America are... really bad. I've seen someone say 'one in a million', but even with the most favourable conditions possible, that's generous. And voters appear to understand this pretty well (which is possibly why they don't vote in a self-interested way). To borrow a metaphor, voting is like playing the lottery. The payoff might be huge, but the chances of winning are still so low it's not worth it. Except people play the lottery because it's fun, and voting is kinda boring. People say that those who didn't vote have no right to complain precisely because even those who care deeply about politics often don't bother to vote.

So no, there is no reason whatsoever to think that that spare 55% would swing either way.

"it's commonly accepted knowledge in the field of political science and in both parties."

If you want to claim that something is commonly accepted knowledge, prove it. Because so far you have provided two sources, and that's being generous and count Wikipedia. It is not commonly accepted knowledge *I've* ever heard.

Republicans suppress the vote, generally speaking, in demographics that tend to vote Democrat. There will never be a Republican law that makes it harder for old rich white men to vote. Stopping Democrats from voting is obviously good for them, regardless of starting position.

You are correct that higher turnout is generally good for the Democrats. But that doesn't mean what you seem to think. Divide America into 'voters', 'maybe-voters' and 'non-voters'. The Republicans have more in the 'voter' group, the Democrats have more 'maybe voters'. But the maybe voters have already been 'awaken'ed - they're just not reliable. This tells us nothing whatsoever about what the non-voters might do. And turnout hasn't been above 60% since 1968, so my guess is that probably 30-40% of the population (the majority of those who didn't vote last time) fall in the 'non-voter' group.

@Xaphan

"I was just pointing out that you were setting up a false dichotomy between 'Republican voter' and 'leans Democrat'"

No you weren't. You where ridiculing my English, while being a native English speaker yourself.

The passage of mine you quote had nothing to do with "leans Democrat" like you claim now - in fact I DIDN'T EVEN WRITE what you "quoted" me as writing!

I just realized that now, when I tried to look it up and it wasn't there!
You FABRICATED a quote by me and then tried to ridicule me for writing something I didn't actually write! Wow - you must be REALLY insecure when you go to such lengths to feel superior.

Anyway, it's obvious to anyone reading what I wrote that I in no way talked about voters who "leans Democrat", like you falsely try to claim now.

Instead I mistakenly wrote that "But almost all Republican voters did", talking about overall voters, when I of course should have written "But almost all Republican supporters did" - because obviously ALL Republican voters voted - that's what makes them Republican voters.

I made that little error and you pounced on it, because you're one of those people who's sense of importance comes from their ability to belittle and ridicule others.

I pushed back on that shit and you now try to invent a completely different excuse for writing what you did - by claiming I meant something I clearly didn't.

Then you try to hide behind being Irish and pretend like English isn't native to you.

In your reply you'll now probably continue this nonsense by claiming you're actually one of the handful of native Irish speakers that do exist but A) that's probably not true and B) even if you where, you would still have had a tremendous advantage at learning English, as that's by far the predominantly used language in Ireland.

Which brings us back to the fact that you felt the need to ridicule someone at a clear disadvantage to yourself. Which some people do only because it gives them a sense of superiority. So apparently you're one of those.

"Yes, I am aware of that - and it means that there is a group of Americans who would like to vote but can't. But that group doesn't nearly cover all the people who don't vote - and I was objecting to "So the vast amount of the people that doesn't vote aren't Republicans and if they'll ever vote it will be for the Democrats.". Voter suppression doesn't account for a majority of the 55% of America that didn't vote. Honestly, I doubt it accounts for 5.5%.

Besides, we were talking about people who don't vote but might. Not the people prevented from voting by unjust laws."

You're completely missing the point - and you're probably doing it deliberately.

The point isn't how many people might actually be disenfranchised in any election - the point is that Republican voter suppression laws proves that Republicans themselves realize they have nothing to gain by increasing the general turnout, but are instead working hard to suppress it as much as they can.

You may fantasize about what percentage of voters voter suppression laws actually stops from voting, but that's only a small part of the GOP strategy to suppress the vote.

In Republican controlled areas polling places in minority communities are often fewer and their opening hours reduced compared to in white communities.
At the same time early day voting is often shortened for the entire state (because such rules can't be written to target minority communities specifically), but with fewer polling stations in minority areas the lines on election day (which more people are forced to use when early voting is less of an option) become insane.

It's not uncommon for people in minority communities to spend HOURS in line to be able to cast their vote - while doing so in the white community in another part of the state is quick and easy.

This is by design, and no laws need to be changed to do this - the Republican controlled county election boards are free to do these things, even when they're obviously discriminatory.

The likelihood of them loosing a court battle over it later is small - and either way the discriminatory result stands as it's obviously impossible to prove how many voters simply gave up on voting all together:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/07/those_insanely_long_early_voting_lines_were_a_result_of_republican_voter.html

This is just one example mind you - there are many other tactics being employed to make voting as difficult as possible for millions upon millions of Americans.

Like the fact that elections are always held on workdays in the US.
And there is no right for workers to take time of to vote, and with abysmal worker protection laws most workers don't dare to even ask their employer for any such thing.

More affluent workers or the self employed are obviously more likely to be able to take time of - but they're also more likely to vote Republican.

There is no simple national registration to vote - you have to do it all yourself, again disadvantaging the poor, elderly, less educated and minorities - again all groups that tend to vote Democratic.

There isn't a western democracy that makes voting as hard as the US - which is obviously a big part of the reason why they have such abysmal turnout.
And again - it's all by design by the Republicans, who obviously has no interest of ever changing a gamed system that's benefiting them.

"So, if it is a well known fact amongst political scientists that people who don't vote will vote Democrat, I trust you have some kind of source? Political scientists do at least tend to write down their 'well known facts' somewhere."

Ok then, so I've proven (but you pretended to not get that) that the Republicans by their own actions show they believe that an increase in turnout would hurt them - I.E. that most people who don't vote would vote Democratic if they did.
A fact you also acknowledge yourself as being true at the very bottom of your reply - but still you ask me to prove what you then acknowledge as true?!
And why on earth would the Republicans believe a higher voter turnout would hurt them - if that hadn't been proven in numerous studies?

And why would countless political journalists and election experts claim as general knowledge that a higher turnout favors the Democrats, if it wasn't general knowledge?

Well, the answer is of course that IT IS general knowledge (even so general that you yourself admitted it) - but still you demand that I cite a source for it.

Again with your need to feel superior, nitpicking on complete bullshit you already know the answer too. Sad really, how insecure you must be deep inside to need to behave like this.

Now I'll predict that you will try to pretend you interpreted me as claiming that literally EVERY non-voter would ONLY vote for the Democrats - if they ever voted.
Now an intelligent person would of course understand any such claim is nonsense - and would also understand that no intelligent person would even make such a sweeping claim, because that would obviously be impossible to prove.

But since I've realized you're not actually interested in understanding or discussing anything here, but only to stroke your own ego, I fully expect you to do claim precisely that nonsense.

Suffice it to say that the people who don't vote are overwhelmingly disproportionably poor, minorities, young and/or lower educated - all groups that trend strongly Democratic.

There are obviously many, many studies on this but I'm not going to jump through hops for your pleasure, so I'll let this single one suffice:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2017/06/why-are-millions-of-citizens-not-registered-to-vote

"Don't get too cocky, most countries get similar results. Yes, America is particularly bad. But it's by no means an outlier. It is simply not worth most people's time to keep up with politics. As shown by the fact that the correlation between political knowledge and education isn't actually that strong once you account for demographic factors (and it's absolutely dwarfed by the strongest correlation, which is with the degree to which one finds politics interesting). No citations here, since you're the one making the claim (that the USA is worse than other democracies), so you're the one who needs evidence if you want to support it."

You're the one's that cocky here - and probably everywhere else (you're not terribly popular, socially - are you? Might be a clue in there, is you can figure it out...).

Again you want to be a dick - but then in the next sentence you confirm what I just said! And then you walk that back again?!

The answer is yes, the US is particularly bad and yes, it is an outlier.

Give me an example of one other western democracy where a major TV personalities can just walk down the road and find people answering REALLY simple questions stupidly enough to make for "fun" TV?

Late night host Jay Leno famously did that in a segment on his show called "Jaywalking" and he's said in interviews they never needed more then 30 minutes to talk to enough idiots to have material for a segment.

And we're talking "What continent are we on right now?"-easy fucking questions, OK?

But since you brought us here, let's see how the shoe fits your foot:

Now cite to me the sources for your claim that "the correlation between political knowledge and education isn't actually that strong once you account for demographic factors (and it's absolutely dwarfed by the strongest correlation, which is with the degree to which one finds politics interesting)".

I in no way distrust your claim, but since we're obviously only trying to show how superior we are here let's make you jump through hoops for my amusement.

Isn't this fun?

"In any case, being better informed about politics doesn't correlate with being on the Left. If anything, it correlates with being more Libertarian (high-information voters are more concerned with both economic and personal freedom according to, f.e., S Althaus, Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics, 2003). "

And there you go again - claiming shit I never said. Like when you fabricated that "quote" of "mine".
First of all the Democrats aren't "left" - they're just the least right-wing party in the US.
Compare them to parties in any other western democracy, and they'd be considered to be a regular right-wing party.
You obviously fancy yourself a libertarian (which isn't surprising, as many assholes online do), but that's generally just an excuse for not having the balls to admit they're right-wing but also like weed.

So you probably believe the Democrats are "left" and this led you to assume I ever claimed they where - but I didn't.

It is however a fact, that between the right-wing Democrats and the far-right Republicans, the majority of US voters - and especially non-voters (who we've already established is poorer, more likely from a minority and less educated then the general electorate) - would obviously benefit more from the Democrats policies.

They at least offer their voters a ban-aid - while all the Republicans offer is to screw some other group (with brown skin) even worse then they screw their low to middle class voters.

"Well... yes. Though I'd point out that Pew only claims that part of the difference is due to demographic factors."

And I'd point out that you're yet again falsifying sources.
Pew doesn't "only claim that part of the difference is due to demographic factors" - they say that "The partisan gaps in knowledge are at least partly a consequence of demographic differences".

Which last time I checked isn't the same thing at all - now is it?
"At least partly" doesn't say "only party" - now does it?

Being serious about their work (unlike you), they express themselves carefully because it's obviously not completely knowable exactly what would explain all of the partisan gap.
But it could also be that what is partly known to be an explanation is the whole reason - something your rewriting of their actual quote prohibits.

Strange how you, being a native English speaker, have such a hard time understanding your own language?

Oh, isn't it fun to be a dick?

"This has actually been studied a *lot*. So I'll just give you a couple of citations or we'll be here all day. According to research such as D Chong Degrees of Rationality in Politics and L Huddy, J Jones and R Chard, Compassion vs. Self-interest: Support for Old-Age Programs among the Non-Elderly, 2001, pretty much *no* voter is self-interested. In general, the members of the electorate (both Democrat and Republican) genuinely do seem to vote for what they believe to be in the national interest. To me, this doesn't really seem like a bad thing, tbh."

Ok, we both know you're a smug little git, but let's not pretend you've read the whole sources you list - shall we?
Just post the links to where you found them like a reasonable person instead of trying to hide between the name of a study we both know I probably couldn't get a hold of even if I tried.

Here I predict you'll try to hide between the bullshit "But this is how it's done at University!"-line - but let's face it - that's not where we are now, are we?
Citing a study by author and name was the best thing an academic could do when writing a paper a century ago - that's why that's the standard.
But online, today, that's obviously NOT the best way to cite a source, so stop hiding behind that, thank you!

Regarding your opinion it's obviously stupid to vote in what you "believe to be in the national interest" when you're being screwed by the nation in question - like most Americans are.
It's also doesn't explain why ANYONE vote Republican in that case, as at the rate they're going the US is heading for disaster under their rule.

Either they'll usher in the Trump dictatorship or they'll end up in a revolution and civil war.
Wealth inequality in the US is now at levels higher then in pre-revolutionary France - and the Trump tax cut for the super rich will only make it worse.
While the UN has recently sent it's special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights to look at the country, which he then issues a scathing report on. Here's the introduction:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/15/extreme-poverty-america-un-special-monitor-report

Sound like one of them shit-hole country's - doesn't it?
Not really the richest nations in the history of the world?

Well, that's what happens when a minute minority steals all the wealth from the vast majority.

The next thing that happens after that is that the small minority looses their heads.
That's been proven time and time again throughout history.

"So no, the majority of Republicans voting against their own interests is simply not unexpected behavior in any way. By itself, it indicates neither lack of information, nor lack of rationality. If anything, it indicates a lack of selfishness."

Bullshit! It indicates a lack of knowledge - which they have because they're kept ignorant by a political class that want them like that.
Informed voters are troublesome - they demand things and ask tough questions.
It's much easier to just dumb everything down to "me good - them baaad".

And you should be fucking ashamed of yourself to talk about the majority of Americans having a "lack of selfishness" when they're being exploited by a über-selfish, sick little minority of the greediest assholes on earth!

Ordinary Americans deserve much better then they're getting from the leeches that suck them dry and exploit them and it won't be fucking "selfish" the day they realize that!

If you're actually Irish, you have a better average standard of living and safety net then the average American does - do you think that's fair?
Them being a much richer nation then Ireland - but still they treat a majority of their own citizens as shit, just so a small minority can increase their insane wealth even more?!

"That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."

More bullshit. What I described there is standard GOP political propaganda. Either you're unfamiliar with it or you support the same lies - but neither is an excuse really.
Not when you pretend to be such an academic.

Even the briefest look at GOP propaganda tells you it's all about fear - and as I said before, their operatives aren't even denying it.

"Honestly, that's probably true of certain Republicans - but I really doubt the assessment of a low-information Democrat would be any better. Based on that Pew article, 54% of them might be voting to reduced the size of the government."

The difference is of course that Democratic voters aren't subjected to deliberate partisan propaganda intended to fill them with lies.
Since, as I said before, the Democrats at least want to offer the average American a band-aid against the ills that afflict him, they can truthfully sell their own policies as benefiting most Americans.

While the Republicans can't - because their policies DON'T benefit most Americans. So they have to lie, lie and lie. Which is why Fox News and right-wing talk radio exists in the first place - to push Republican propaganda.

So if Democratic voters don't understand what the Democratic party stands for, it's not because they've been lied to by the party or their propaganda. Because the Democratic doesn't need to lie to sell it's policies, and they have no one pushing any propaganda for them.

"Again, it doesn't matter *why* the Republicans are better informed, it's simply a fact that they do tend to be, and in general, the better informed someone is, the less likely they are to be voting for a reason that isn't true."

Oh you clearly lost the plot now! Republican voters are clearly NOT "better informed" in a general sense - I certainly never agreed to that and there is certainly no data to prove that either!
What I wrote was that "Yes the average Republican is more knowledgeable on basic survey questions, like "Which party is generally considered more supportive of oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge?" - but that sure as shit doesn't mean they're generally "better informed"!

Because at the same time they don't absorb unbiased information as easily as Democrats or Independents do - which multiple studies have shown, see for instance:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/06/sharing-fake-news-us-rightwing-study-trump-university-of-oxford

and

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/11/why_conservatives_are_more_susceptible_to_believing_in_lies.html

And going back to Pew, a MAJORITY of Republicans now believe colleges and universities are bad for America!:

http://www.people-press.org/2017/07/10/sharp-partisan-divisions-in-views-of-national-institutions/

Which is explained in the Slate article above. It's not that Republicans are more stupid - it's simply that they refuse to accept the scientific knowledge being produced, because it doesn't confirm their own ideological beliefs.
I usually call this that people are "actively stupid", as in no merely stupid person could come up with all the excuses and illogical twist and turns people on the right have to bend themselves into to get their failed ideology to make sense.

But anyway, by drawing the completely erroneous conclusion that Republicans would be generally "better informed", you then draw the further - and equally wrong conclusion - that they are thus less likely to "be voting for a reason that isn't true"

HUGE numbers of Republicans believe some really fucked-up things they've been told by right-wing propaganda, like the Slate article says:
"As recently as 2016, 45 percent of Republicans still believed that the Affordable Care Act included "death panels" A 2015 poll found that 54 percent of GOP primary voters believed then-President Obama to be a Muslim."

And these are obviously not the only false things they believe - but it shows the penetration of right-wing propaganda in the Republican base as NO OTHER media spread these repeatedly disproven lies.
The ONLY place you can ever find anyone giving credence to lies like these are in right-wing propaganda, and as the first article shows Republicans are by far more susceptible to outright lies like these.
So they're clearly NOT generally "better informed".

"Oh, related, my understanding is that the D-R gap is still there when you compare the median scores on quizzes like that one. Which should at least significantly reduce the influence of wealth. Though if that *wasn't* the case, and it really was just a small group dragging everyone else up, that would imply that almost all high-information voters would have to be Republican (since there are so few high-information voters to start with, you need a lot of them to significantly influence the average). Which, since voters aren't selfish, would actually be a solid reason to think the Republicans might be right. In the same way that when pretty much everyone who knows a lot about science says that global warming is a thing, you listen."

I understand you apparently thought you where very smart there - but I'm afraid it made no sense what so ever.
So I'd just like to point out that if believing that global warming "is a thing" is a sign of intelligence or high level of information in voters, then Republicans are obviously stupid as rocks - and they've actually become even more stupid and uninformed since Trump took office:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-steady-despite-partisan-shifts.aspx

Which again aligns with what the psychology professor from the Slate article talked about above - their refusal to acknowledge facts that contradict their ideological beliefs, and their greater willingness to put trust in their leader.

"[Citation needed]"

Actually it's not needed at all. Republicans have done nothing but push fear-based propaganda built on lies for the last decades. As I showed you above 45% of Republicans believe "death panels" is a thing, for instance. And as we both know, lies like that isn't spread by anyone else then right-wing propaganda.
Which leads to the obvious conclusion that the Republicans have done the very best they can to scare the bejesus out of all American voters they can reach, to drive them to the polls with fear.
Those that still haven't succumbed to that propaganda are obviously either not reached by it or they simply don't believe it.
It's simply a logical conclusion.

"Especially since a lot of non-voters probably don't bother with boring politics stuff long enough for said propaganda to reach them. Even a steady diet of Brietbart would probably tell you which side are the baby-killers who want to make Our Brave Soldiers fight ISIS with sticks and stones. And yet you'll note that on the survey you linked, a lot of people simply didn't know the answers. Fox News can't influence you if you never watch it and skip all the links on Facebook because politics is boring."

There you go again conflating things that have no connection. Pew doesn't ask people the kind of loaded question you talk about here - because they're serious.
But as studies asking about insane right-wing propaganda nonsense shows - a massive amount of Republicans believe in those.
I doubt Breitbart ever spent a single article talking seriously about a policy issue like oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge - they, and the right-wing propaganda machine in general isn't interested in the "boring" stuff. They sell on sexy lies and fake outrage over nonsense like "The War on Christmas" or how Hillary Clinton runs a child sex-ring from the basement of a pizzeria (that doesn't even have a basement, by the way).
And as I've shown with the links above - Republicans don't absorb unbiased news or information very well. They far more then Democrats or Independents live in their safe little right-wing bubble where they only trust their own safe sources of information. Which are feeding them straight up propaganda.

I'll jump past a lot of bullshit you wrote there...

"If you want to claim that something is commonly accepted knowledge, prove it. Because so far you have provided two sources, and that's being generous and count Wikipedia. It is not commonly accepted knowledge *I've* ever heard."

Well maybe you should start reading some more, when you're unaware of commonly accepted facts? Especially more varied sources, since you seem to subsist on a diet of right-wing propaganda yourself.

"Republicans suppress the vote, generally speaking, in demographics that tend to vote Democrat. There will never be a Republican law that makes it harder for old rich white men to vote. Stopping Democrats from voting is obviously good for them, regardless of starting position."

Well thank you for stating the obvious there, Sherlock.

"You are correct that higher turnout is generally good for the Democrats. But that doesn't mean what you seem to think. Divide America into 'voters', 'maybe-voters' and 'non-voters'. The Republicans have more in the 'voter' group, the Democrats have more 'maybe voters'. But the maybe voters have already been 'awaken'ed - they're just not reliable. This tells us nothing whatsoever about what the non-voters might do. And turnout hasn't been above 60% since 1968, so my guess is that probably 30-40% of the population (the majority of those who didn't vote last time) fall in the 'non-voter' group."

Yes I am - but still you felt the need to jerk of in public by writing that pointless reply, so here we are.

And again then - let's be a dick like you and demand your sources for your claims in the rest of that bit. Because that's apparently how you roll.

So, are we done here now or do you want to jerk of some more?

@Nisse_Hult I understand that I may have been unclear, but reread what I read.

"Um... yes.

But the belief that the people who don't vote will vote Democrat if they ever do doesn't seem very well-founded to me."

The paragraph break makes things less obvious, and I admit I could have written more clearly. But note that my reply would still make just as much sense if you *had* written 'supporters'. My intention really wasn't to insult your English. I'm sorry it came across that way to you.

However, I would also appreciate it if you were slower to attribute malicious motives to me.

As for the quotation... those actually aren't exactly quotation marks.

I probably shouldn't have done this, but it is acceptable in English in some circumstances to use inverted commas to separate a particular phrase from the rest of the text. I do the same thing at the end of the post with the inverted commas around 'maybe-voters'.

So no, I was not in fact quoting you. Which is why I was using "x" around all your quotes, but only used 'x' around 'leans Democrat'. I apologise if that usage is not acceptable in Swedish.

However, I stand by my claim that your post does attempt to show that those who are not already Republicans will naturally align themselves with the Democrats if they align themselves at all, and would say that if this is truly the case, these people could reasonably be said to lean Democrat. Thus, you divide America into two camps - those who are Republican voters, and those who lean Democrat (by my definition). I do not believe that these two camps are exhaustive, and thus claim that your division of the USA into those two is a false dichotomy (by which I mean that at least one other option has been incorrectly excluded from consideration).

*gasp* I trust that is a detailed enough explanation of what I meant? Again, I admit that I can be unclear, and am very sorry about that.

But no, of course English is my native language. That one *was* a joke. I was saying that we should not have a conversation in Swedish because it (like Irish) is such a useless language that noone would understand it. In order to avoid misunderstandings, I shall attempt to remain entirely serious at all times in future.

Also, the constant ad hominem attacks throughout your posts are boring and pointless. Your post would be significantly quicker to read through if you would focus on the argument rather than the arguer. So I'll just be ignoring all the childish insults, K?

"Republican voter suppression laws proves that Republicans themselves realize they have nothing to gain by increasing the general turnout, but are instead working hard to suppress it as much as they can."

Except that, as I already said, they aren't. They're working to specifically reduce turnout in Democrat-leaning communities. As you yourself admit "In Republican controlled areas polling places in minority communities are often fewer and their opening hours reduced compared to in white communities." - if this was an attempt to suppress turnout in general, they'd have fewer voting booths in white communities too. But they don't, because voter suppression efforts are targeted, not general. To repeat myself a third time, Republicans are not working to decrease the general turnout. They are working to reduce the turnout amongst Democrat-leaning groups. If you want to show that the Republicans think that the population in general is more inclined to vote Democrat, you need an example of voter suppression that does not disproportionately impact groups already known to favour the Democrats. Which none of your examples do. You've even been so good as to explain exactly how Republicans are sure to target particular communities.

(In passing, neither the elderly, nor those without a college education, are actually more likely than average to vote Democrat - http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2-party-affiliation-among-voters-1992-2016/.)

"You may fantasize about what percentage of voters voter suppression laws actually stops from voting,"

In general, you need to prove that something is significant, I don't need to prove it's insignificant. That's just how statistics works.

"Ok then, so I've proven (but you pretended to not get that) that the Republicans by their own actions show they believe that an increase in turnout would hurt them - I.E. that most people who don't vote would vote Democratic if they did.
A fact you also acknowledge yourself as being true at the very bottom of your reply - but still you ask me to prove what you then acknowledge as true?!"

Um... no. What I said was that a greater proportion of Democratic voters are sometimes unable or unwilling to vote than of Republican voters. It is not valid to extrapolate to those who do not vote at all the characteristics of those who vote, but only sometimes. The latter are still voters, the former are not. And voter suppression laws mostly affect the latter category, they tell us very little about the former. Thus, I do not acknowledge that most people who do not vote would vote Democrat if they did. If you only meant to say that those who are already inclined to vote, but sometimes don't, tend to vote Democrat when they do, then you are correct. But you claimed that those who *don't* vote will vote democrat if they ever do. Which is a much stronger claim.

"And why on earth would the Republicans believe a higher voter turnout would hurt them - if that hadn't been proven in numerous studies?"

Because, as I just explained, they are focusing on those who might or might not vote, not those who probably won't.

And claiming that legions of people you just don't feel like naming right now agree with you is still not going to convince anyone, by the way.

"Now I'll predict that you will try to pretend you interpreted me as claiming that literally EVERY non-voter would ONLY vote for the Democrats - if they ever voted."

Wrong.

Anyway, your citation... is confusing to me. Because it says nothing whatsoever about demographics - it is possible to figure out from the given statistics that about 36% of the cohort were in the 18-29 range, but given that online surveys skew towards younger people anyway (who use the internet more), that is not a particularly disproportionate result. No data is given about income, education or minority status. Meanwhile, the survey also says that non-voters (those who are not registered to vote and those who do not vote) are more likely to believe that a good citizen need neither volunteer their time nor donate their money to help others (Fig 6), which would seem to point to a more naturally Republican attitude. So your link doesn't actually seem to back up your own point. Like I said, I'm confused, did you paste the wrong link?

"but then in the next sentence you confirm what I just said! And then you walk that back again?!"

I'm sorry if I was confusing. I said that other countries have *similar* results. I admit that America is at the bottom end, but claim that it is still well within the expected range. The same way that a 53% turnout in a US presidential election would be lower than usual, but by no means shocking.

"Late night host Jay Leno famously did that in a segment on his show called "Jaywalking" and he's said in interviews they never needed more then 30 minutes to talk to enough idiots to have material for a segment."

Ooookay, let's break this down.
1) Jay Leno is not a convincing source.
2) That is an anecdote, not data. There is a difference.
3) Even if it was data, you can't prove something is an outlier from one data point. The quote tells us only about America, and so gives no information about whether or not other it would be different in another country.
4) And no, I don't need to give an example of another country, because the null hypothesis is that a particular data point is not an outlier. You are the one making a positive claim here (that the USA is an outlier), so you are the one who has to prove it.

"Now cite to me the sources for your claim that "the correlation between political knowledge and education isn't actually that strong once you account for demographic factors (and it's absolutely dwarfed by the strongest correlation, which is with the degree to which one finds politics interesting)"."

Oh, sorry, I thought I had cited for that. My mistake. Well, the basic data is from the 2000 ANES, but since even I'd get bored reading that, a better source would be I Somin, Democracy and Political Ignorance, 2013. Page 83. And it's no trouble, thank you, since I had it open anyway.

"First of all the Democrats aren't "left" - they're just the least right-wing party in the US."

Using 'left' as a relative term to describe the Democrats because they are less right-wing than the Republican party is entirely standard usage, but in deference to your preferences, allow me to reword what I wrote as 'In any case, being better informed about politics doesn't correlate with greater agreement with the Democratic platform. Instead, high-information voters are more concerned with both economic and personal freedom than the general American population, according to, f.e., S Althaus, Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics, 2003.'. Happy now?

"who we've already established is poorer, more likely from a minority and less educated then the general electorate."

We established nothing of the sort - you claimed it, and linked an article that didn't say that at all.

"It is however a fact, that between the right-wing Democrats and the far-right Republicans, the majority of US voters - and especially non-voters would obviously benefit more from the Democrats policies."

And? I have made no statement about which policies are actually better, because that is an entirely separate topic. I merely stated an objectively measurable fact about the policy preferences of those who know more about politics than the general population of the USA.

"And I'd point out that you're yet again falsifying sources."

In this case, I have to say that your English actually *is* at fault. I know that many other languages are more relaxed about word-order than English is, but in English there is a significant difference between saying "Pew only claims that part of the difference is due to demographic factors." (Which is what I said, and leaves open the possibility that all of the difference is demographic) and saying "Pew claims that only part of the difference is due to demographic factors." (Which is not what I said, and doesn't). If it is easier to understand, I could also have said "Pew does not claim that all of the difference is due to demographic factors.", and it would have meant the same thing.

So in other words, no, my words absolutely leave that possibility open. My main point was still not dependent upon the reasons for the gap.

"Just post the links to where you found them like a reasonable person instead of trying to hide between the name of a study we both know I probably couldn't get a hold of even if I tried."

Um... as it happens, I actually *have* read everything I've cited. That's why I picked the works I did to cite. However, here is a link to the abstract for the second article: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0162-895X.00249 and here is an article from 1979: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1954885?seq=1 (you can read the whole thing if you know anyone with access to Jstor, but the conclusion is in the abstract on the first page anyway). And yes, title author pagenumber is the best way to cite things that are not freely available online (and in some cases, don't even exist as ebooks).

"Regarding your opinion it's obviously stupid to vote in what you "believe to be in the national interest" when you're being screwed by the nation in question - like most Americans are."

I have been trying to avoid value judgements, but trying to make life better for other people even though your own life is going badly isn't stupid, and I'm sorry you think it is. Millions of American voters, though they might be incompetent, are acting in a way that they believe will improve the lives of others - not of the rich, but of common people like themselves. And you want them to what, be more selfish?

"It's also doesn't explain why ANYONE vote Republican in that case, as at the rate they're going the US is heading for disaster under their rule."

Because they do not believe this to be the case. They may be incorrect in this belief, you may even say that this belief has been cultivated by right-wing propaganda. But, right or wrong, that is what they believe.

(I'm not going to reply to anything you say about which party is *actually* right unless it's relevant to the point. Which is, once again, who non-voters would vote for if they ever voted.)

"The next thing that happens after that is that the small minority looses their heads.
That's been proven time and time again throughout history."

The feudal system in Europe lasted 600 years.

"Bullshit! It indicates a lack of knowledge - which they have because they're kept ignorant by a political class that want them like that. Informed voters are troublesome - they demand things and ask tough questions."

"By itself" was key in that phrase. You cannot conclude that Republicans are ignorant *simply* from the fact that they are not voting in a self-interested manner.

"And you should be fucking ashamed of yourself to talk about the majority of Americans having a "lack of selfishness" when they're being exploited by a über-selfish, sick little minority of the greediest assholes on earth!"

They aren't selfless because they allow the rich to take advantage of them. They are selfless (in their voting habits) because they are acting in a manner which is not self-interested. That is the definition of the word "selfless" (quotation marks here used to indicate the use-mention distinction and not as an indication of a quote, btw). No judgement is intended to attach.

I should say, however, that however much they may *actually* be benefiting the rich, this probably isn't the intention either. People vote for lower corporate tax because they believe that everyone will benefit from the economic results of doing so. Not just for the sake of the corporations.

"If you're actually Irish, you have a better average standard of living and safety net then the average American does - do you think that's fair?"

I make no judgement on the issue at all. I am not currently discussing morality.

"What I described there is standard GOP political propaganda. Either you're unfamiliar with it or you support the same lies - but neither is an excuse really."

Um... I think you miss my point. I wasn't denying that these claims are being made. I was questioning the 'because'.

"The difference is of course that Democratic voters aren't subjected to deliberate partisan propaganda intended to fill them with lies."

Hahahahahahahaha. Yes they are. Less, possibly, but they absolutely still are.

But in any case, irrelevant. If someone is voting based on something that isn't true, it really doesn't matter *why* they're wrong.

"Oh you clearly lost the plot now! Republican voters are clearly NOT "better informed" in a general sense - I certainly never agreed to that and there is certainly no data to prove that either!"

ANES data says that they do better on questions about the policy positions of the two major parties, on questions about current events, and on factual questions about the structure of American politics. In short, they know more. I would regard this as indicating that they are 'better informed'.

"Because at the same time they don't absorb unbiased information as easily as Democrats or Independents do - which multiple studies have shown, see for instance:"

I'm just going to skip to the first thing that looks like an actual academic source from each of those, since neither the Guardian, nor Slate, are credible sources.

Except that that's not what the academics are actually saying. First off, the Oxford study, which is "Polarization, Partisanship and Junk News Consumption over Social Media in the US" (http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/polarization-partisanship-and-junk-news/), since you didn't link it directly. First off, in the Twitter study, 'Trump support' is separated from 'Republican party'. And whilst the 'conservative media' and 'trump support' categories shared a lot of fake news, the 'republican party' category shared far less. Still, that still puts them as the main sharers of fake news on Twitter. The Facebook results, however, are different. Whilst more fake news was shared by the 'hard conservative' group than by all other groups put together, the 'Republican party' group actually shared *less* fake news than the 'Democratic Party' group. So that study isn't as clear cut as the Guardian makes it sound.
As for the Harvard report: "while any group can come to believe false information, misinformation is currently predominantly a pathology of the right.". In other words, Republican voters are more likely to be actively misled, but no statement is made as to who is more likely to actually believe something false. Since I don't care why people are mistaken, merely whether or not they are, I don't see why I should care.

If anything, the fact that Republicans are being subject to misinformation and *still* giving more accurate answers on ANES would suggest that they actually absorb unbiased information much more easily than Democrats do.

The Harvard study also says "That said, there is at least anecdotal evidence that when Republicans are in power, the left becomes increasingly susceptible to promoting and accepting fake news.". Given that the Democrats had been in power for seven and a bit years during the run-up to the 2016 election, the difference may become rather less pronounced by 2020. And this is why trusting outlets known to favour one party over another is not really a good idea.

"HUGE numbers of Republicans believe some really fucked-up things they've been told by right-wing propaganda, like the Slate article says: "

Incorrect beliefs on any particular question do not prove that a group is less informed in general. Especially if you cherry-pick the question. According to that same Harvard report the Slate article cites, Democrats were more likely to be 9/11 truthers, for example. Again, Slate has an agenda.

Actually, something I found interesting about the Slate article. It says the following "But conservatives and liberals typically differ in their particular psychological makeups." and links http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/05/05/what-is-motivated-reasoning-how-does-it-work-dan-kahan-answers/#.Wze8YadKjct - except that that article doesn't even remotely suggest that conservatives are any more likely than Liberals to engage in motivated reasoning. Which rather illustrates why Slate is not a serious source, and why I'm just going to ignore that article. If you want to tell me about what psychologists have found, please do the courtesy of linking something at least vaguely academic.

"Those that still haven't succumbed to that propaganda are obviously either not reached by it or they simply don't believe it."

I actually misread what you wrote in the first place. To revise, there is no reason to believe that non-voters *have* been reached by Republican propaganda.

"There you go again conflating things that have no connection. Pew doesn't ask people the kind of loaded question you talk about here - because they're serious."

For God's sake. If you believe that the Democrats want soldiers to fight ISIS unarmed, you probably know which side supports military spending. If you think Democrats are baby-killers, you probably know which side supports abortion. Both of which are policy issues your Pew article did, indeed, ask about - and which many people got wrong.

"And as I've shown with the links above - Republicans don't absorb unbiased news or information very well. "

Assuming you meant to include a comparative there, at best you've shown that they are *given* less unbiased news than Democrats.. And you haven't even done that very well.

"Well maybe you should start reading some more, when you're unaware of commonly accepted facts?"

You are the one making a positive claim. It is your job to prove it, not mine.

"let's be a dick like you and demand your sources for your claims in the rest of that bit. Because that's apparently how you roll."

Well maybe you should start reading some more, when you're unaware of commonly accepted facts? Especially more varied sources, since you seem to subsist on a diet of left-wing propaganda yourself.

See? I can do it too.

Honestly, I should probably stop replying to you - your English is clearly making this conversation difficult for you. Sorry.

@Nisse_Hult Calling me a shitbag in a language you didn't think I'd understand? Classy. And also over the line for me.

Allow me to indulge in a little ad hom of my own:

You appear unable to distinguish between is and ought. You believe that things will happen a certain way because they *should*, and interpret someone saying that they *will* not as that person saying that they *should* not.

You seem more concerned with being right than you are with finding the truth, which probably explains why you are quoting only from sites that are known to agree with your positions. Seriously, MSNBC. The Guardian. Vice. Are you even trying here? What's worse, you didn't even take the five minutes it would have taken to check that the studies the articles referred to actually said what you wanted them to. I doubt you are unaware that the press can distort the results of scientific studies, which means that you are simply attempting to avoid challenge.

You interpret everything said to you in the least charitable way possible, including regularly interpreting things in ways actually unsupported by the text in question.

And you immediately resort to childish insults, attacking the arguer rather than the argument.

In short, saying your English must be bad was me being nice, because the other option is that you are deliberately doing everything you can to avoid actually engaging with any disagreement with your ideas. In other words, you are entirely closed-minded and act as living proof that delusion is possible across the political spectrum.

Also, I vote Green, you utter moron.

@Xaphan

I know you don't understand it.
But I also know there is Google translate and other means to easily translate text online.
So I fully expected - and intended - for you to get the message. And I'm happy you did.

I notice you however feel the need to yet again stroke your own ego, by pretending it was somehow an achievement of yours to google the translation of one sentence in a language foreign to you.

Unfortunately I have to begin correcting you immediately as "skithög" isn't actually correctly translated into English as "shitbag" but as "shitpile".

I and most other people would think that kind of small mistake is quite acceptable from what we know to be non-native speakers.

But not you of course - because you're a smug little dick who's sense of self-worth stems from belittling others.
So I felt I really HAD to make the point that you where actually wrong.
You know that feeling, I'm sure.

Now that was one sentence mind you - not hundreds of them.
Just imagine how much tiny little shit I could find in all of that if you where forced to reply in a non-native language to you, and I was as tiny a little dick as you?

But fortunately for you, you'll never have to experience that as you by dumb luck has been given the benefit of having the lingua franca of our time be your native language.

Some native born English speaker are humbled by realizing that, and acknowledge the fact they have a huge advantage talking to any non-native English speaker.

Other are dicks and use their advantage to belittle others - like you do.

"You appear unable to distinguish between is and ought. You believe that things will happen a certain way because they *should*, and interpret someone saying that they *will* not as that person saying that they *should* not."

One of the differences between you and me is that I stand squarely for democracy against tyranny - while you make excuses for tyranny.
You hide this behind the kind of vaporous semantic nonsense you posted above, where you pretend to be some impartial intellectual bystander in this choice.

But no one can be a bystander between democracy and tyranny - either you support democracy, or you support tyranny, if only by you inability to plainly defend the first. And you chose the latter camp.

You're one of those the Soviet propaganda labeled "useful idiots" during the Cold War. You undermine democracy with your empty intellectual masturbation where you make every argument the Soviets did (and the Russians are now doing again, under Putin).

Democracy is an anomaly in human history, it's not really something we should expect to last, one shouldn't resist tyranny as success isn't guaranteed, don't even bother voting, it's almost guaranteed to be useless anyway - you hit all the note the Kremlin want to see western idiots like you do.

"You seem more concerned with being right than you are with finding the truth, which probably explains why you are quoting only from sites that are known to agree with your positions. Seriously, MSNBC. The Guardian. Vice. Are you even trying here? What's worse, you didn't even take the five minutes it would have taken to check that the studies the articles referred to actually said what you wanted them to. I doubt you are unaware that the press can distort the results of scientific studies, which means that you are simply attempting to avoid challenge."

You couldn't find the truth if it hit you over the head - the fact that you pretend that US Republican voters are generally better informed then Democratic voters are proof of that.
You're clearly cherrypicking only the evidence you think support your ideological beliefs - and now you project the same accusation onto me.

Attacking mainstream media sources is a classical move of undemocratic extremists - but even so, this attempt by you is unusually weak.
MSNBC? I've linked to videos from them of REPUBLICANS speaking out against their own party, in their own words - how on earth do you pretend that the source makes their message biased?!
Your inferred claim that the exact same words spoken by the exact same people on another media platform would make them more trustworthy clearly only shows your not arguing the message here, but are simply trying to smear the message as untrustworthy, based on the source.

The Guardian? It's one of the leading English language newspapers in the world with a well documented record for excellence. Except possibly to right-wing partisans like you of course.
And I reiterate; attacking the free press - instead of being able to critique what the free press actually says - is a hallmark of extremists.
From the Nazi's and the far-right to the Soviet states to now Trump - and tiny little you.

And finally - Vice? What's that? I don't believe I've ever used this "Vice" (whatever it is) as a source for anything and I don't know where you got that from.

"You interpret everything said to you in the least charitable way possible, including regularly interpreting things in ways actually unsupported by the text in question."

No, I interpret things just like most people do.
Deep down you know this, because you know how most people respond to you. They don't like you.
You try to tell yourself it's because you're so intelligent and people resent you because of it - but in fact it's because you behave like a dick.

The charitable way to look at this is that you have a personality, or some type of neuropsychiatric, disorder.
If this is yet undiagnosed, I'd recommend you to seek professional help to have yourself screened, because if you have a disorder of this kind it may not be entirely your own fault you're such a dick.
With a diagnosis you might be able to get help with social training so you don't end up utterly alone and isolated.

The less charitable way is that you're mentally sound but just a terrible, terrible human being who supports authoritarianism either knowingly on unknowingly - while being a dick towards your fellow man.
In which case you will end up utterly alone and isolated, but that only serves you right as you have no excuse for your behavior.

"Also, I vote Green, you utter moron."

You don't have a chance to prove that, and since you've completely destroyed all goodwill and trust between us, your claim is completely pointless.
But mostly so because even if you DID vote Green - what you've written her is still only apologies for authoritarian rule.

I.E. you might vote Green all you like - but you're still just a useful idiot for authoritarian Russian and far-right propaganda.

@Nisse_Hult Actually, I speak some Norwegian. I have some friends over there, and they find my pronunciation hilarious. So I ended up being taught a little.

I probably wouldn't have made a mistake if I was using the internet, which tends to get individual words correct. So thank you for the correction.

You're aware that the whole 'tantrum' thing is not making you look any better, by the way?

Oh, and 'were', not 'where'. Wouldn't normally point it out, but the irony of you making a mistake whilst berating me for making a mistake is... hilarious. So thanks for that, too.

"One of the differences between you and me is that I stand squarely for democracy against tyranny - while you make excuses for tyranny."

And that is exactly my point - giving reasons why tyranny *will* happen is not the same as saying that tyranny *should* happen. Knowing that tyranny is the default which must be opposed reminds people to be on guard from it.

"Democracy is an anomaly in human history, it's not really something we should expect to last, one shouldn't resist tyranny as success isn't guaranteed, don't even bother voting, it's almost guaranteed to be useless anyway - you hit all the note the Kremlin want to see western idiots like you do."

True, false, and true. It's a mistake sandwich! A society in which people are free is an anomaly - which is precisely why it must be defended so strongly. Because it might never come back if it's lost. Voting is often a waste of time - anyone with a basic grounding in public choice theory can tell you that - but if you think voting is the only way to effect change, you're flat wrong. But I did not - nor would I - say that one should not resist tyranny.

There is an argument I have come across in a book of logical fallacies, which I shall reproduce here:

"If we decide that foreign aid is ineffective, and does not raise living standards, then we are condemning people in the poorer countries to a life of degrading poverty, squalor and disease."

The argument, of course, is fallacious because facts do not depend on 'should'. If aid doesn't work, it is better to know that now, so that we can find other ways of helping the poor. So too for voting. Facts must be determined in the absence of moral concerns, so that on the basis of these facts, one can decide what *should* be done. It is this that you seem to be incapable of.

"You couldn't find the truth if it hit you over the head - the fact that you pretend that US Republican voters are generally better informed then Democratic voters are proof of that."

I must be being misled by all those 'actual statistics' from 'published sources' that support my position. Academia is, after all, a well known bastion of Republicanism. Online magazines with open political affiliations are fare more trustworthy.

Seriously, you think I'm wrong? Fine. I'm happy to be wrong. Give me a source that proves it - because the sources you've cited so far... don't. You think I'm cherrypicking? Show me the data I've missed.

"Attacking mainstream media sources is a classical move of undemocratic extremists"

And Hitler ate sugar. Analysing and questioning whether the source of particular information has an agenda is also a basic part of critical thinking.

By the way, Fox News is *also* a mainstream media source.

But no, both MSNBC and the Guardian are reasonably reliable, you can generally trust them not to actually be lying or anything. But that wasn't my point. My point was that they are both openly supportive of the Democratic party, and thus can often be expected to report things in a way that favours the Democratic party. Which means that whilst the facts may be true, they may be selected to form a particular narrative. You yourself being a supporter of the Democratic party, your use of these sources rather suggests that the media you consume is selected in order to confirm your own existing beliefs, rather than to challenge them.

Note that at no point did I say that the message in those particular videos was biased. I am critiquing you, not your argument, since I have already made my reply to your arguments.

"The Guardian? It's one of the leading English language newspapers in the world with a well documented record for excellence."

I read it regularly. But it also created a letter-writing campaign to support the Democrats in the 2004 election. The fact that they openly admit their agenda makes the Guardian in many ways more trustworthy than if they tried to hide it, but the agenda still exists.

"And finally - Vice? What's that? I don't believe I've ever used this "Vice" (whatever it is) as a source for anything and I don't know where you got that from."

I mean Slate, of course. I'm sorry. Vice is another Democrat-leaning e-zine, and I got them mixed up in my head... you should try Vice, you might like it.

"From the Nazi's and the far-right to the Soviet states to now Trump"

Wow. You went full Godwin. Congrats! You lose! Argument over!

(Before I go, though, that stuff about how people respond to me... that is *really* detailed. Like this is something you've been through. Please tell me if there's anything I can do to help. Seriously, I know you might interpret this as mockery, but it's not. You may be a little abrasive, but I genuinely don't want you to be unhappy.)

@Xaphan

"Actually, I speak some Norwegian. I have some friends over there, and they find my pronunciation hilarious."

Don't kid yourself - you don't have friends. But I do imagine people regularly laugh at you - but usually behind your back.

"You're aware that the whole 'tantrum' thing is not making you look any better, by the way?"

I wouldn't worry about how I look if I where you. I'm not the one who can't make friends because I'm a dick.
But I understand it's the projection talking. Everyone else has a problem - not you.

"Oh, and 'were', not 'where'. Wouldn't normally point it out, but the irony of you making a mistake whilst berating me for making a mistake is... hilarious. So thanks for that, too."

Haha! I'm not the one who started berating people for their spelling of a non-native language - YOU WHERE.
Then I gave you ONE sentence in Swedish, of which you translated ONE WORD - and promptly got that wrong - and to prove my point I pointed that out.
Now just imagine how many spelling mistakes you would be making, if you like me had to express yourself in a non-native language?

Which was my entire point - you're being a dick because you continue to use the advantage you have of having English as your native tongue in this conversation.

You don't HAVE to be a dick - you CHOSE to be a dick.

I don't - you can look through hundreds of my post here and you'll be hard pressed to find me ever ridiculing people for their spelling errors.
And the same goes for my comments in my native tongue - I don't do that, because I understand not everyone has the same advantage as I have.

But you, you CHOSE to be a dick. Which is a telling sign of why you're having problems making friends.

"And that is exactly my point - giving reasons why tyranny *will* happen is not the same as saying that tyranny *should* happen. Knowing that tyranny is the default which must be opposed reminds people to be on guard from it. "

Again with the semantic nonsense. You've never ever said anything about how tyranny must be opposed before. Everything you've written so far only normalizes tyranny and authoritarianism and that is why you're a useful idiot for those forces.
In your intellectual masturbation, it's more important to you to claim you're semantically correct in the use of words, then it is to support democracy.
That's why the forces of authoritarianism love idiots like you - your comments only aid them in their campaign against democracy, as you don't clearly take a stand for it and against them.

"True, false, and true. It's a mistake sandwich! A society in which people are free is an anomaly - which is precisely why it must be defended so strongly. Because it might never come back if it's lost. Voting is often a waste of time - anyone with a basic grounding in public choice theory can tell you that - but if you think voting is the only way to effect change, you're flat wrong. But I did not - nor would I - say that one should not resist tyranny."

Again - you've never ever before expressed any support for democracy - and in fact you're still not doing so, as you still refuse to use the term.

"A society in which people are free" - that's how all tyrannies have always defended their own tyranny, by claiming their citizens are in fact more free then in democracies.

Free from the "confusion" of open debate, "free" from the exploitation of market economy, "free" from social developments that threaten the old order and so on.

"See - our people in the Soviet Union are free from all those terrible things in the decadent democratic west!" - that was the Soviet propaganda, for example.
And you won't even use the name of democracy while you pretend to defend it now.

""If we decide that foreign aid is ineffective, and does not raise living standards, then we are condemning people in the poorer countries to a life of degrading poverty, squalor and disease."

The argument, of course, is fallacious because facts do not depend on 'should'. If aid doesn't work, it is better to know that now, so that we can find other ways of helping the poor. So too for voting. Facts must be determined in the absence of moral concerns, so that on the basis of these facts, one can decide what *should* be done. It is this that you seem to be incapable of."

Your argument is of course worthless, as you base it on a quote you don't source.
There is no proof anyone but you ever wrote that sentence, and if they did there is no way for any of us to see if you've taken the quote completely out of context.

But what we do know for a fact is that you've falsified quotes before - so why should anyone believe a word you're saying now?

"Facts must be determined in the absence of moral concerns, so that on the basis of these facts, one can decide what *should* be done. It is this that you seem to be incapable of."

And there you're right back to spouting authoritarian propaganda. Because one can of course NOT chose between tyranny and democracy without "moral concerns" - as that by definition would be immoral!
Democracy is of course the only morally acceptable choice and your argument that we should ignore morality is therefore an argument for authoritarianism and immorality.

Putin would be so proud of you right now!

"I must be being misled by all those 'actual statistics' from 'published sources' that support my position. Academia is, after all, a well known bastion of Republicanism. Online magazines with open political affiliations are fare more trustworthy.

Seriously, you think I'm wrong? Fine. I'm happy to be wrong. Give me a source that proves it - because the sources you've cited so far... don't. You think I'm cherrypicking? Show me the data I've missed."

"All those 'actual statistics' from 'published sources' that support my position" is in fact one survey done by Pew, that shows that the Republicans in that survey where better at correctly identifying things like "Which party is generally considered more supportive of oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge?".

Against that you have any number of surveys that clearly shows that Republican are far more likely to believe DEMONSTRABLY FALSE things - which also happen to be staples of the propaganda they're feed through right-wing media.
I've already given you sources which you've refused to acknowledge, here are some more you can ignore, to prove how open to facts you are:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/12/28/americans-especially-but-not-exclusively-trump-voters-believe-crazy-wrong-things/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3882c7d14a7e

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/01/16/study-42-percent-of-republicans-believe-accurate-but-negative-stories-qualify-as-fake-news/?utm_term=.61cf123c5213

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-poll/most-republicans-believe-fbi-justice-dept-trying-to-delegitimize-trump-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1FP2UH

Now the truth is of course that no amount of sources from me will ever see you change your position, as you'll just cherrypick the proof you need to continue claiming your partisan beliefs. You've already proven as much by doing it with the first sources I posted.

"And Hitler ate sugar. Analysing and questioning whether the source of particular information has an agenda is also a basic part of critical thinking.

By the way, Fox News is *also* a mainstream media source."

It might be - if the source in any way decided over the information, but in the cases you protested that wasn't the case.

MSNBC didn't tell Republicans coming on their shows what to say, and you're only attacking the platform - not the message the guests actually expressed there.
I.E. your NOT actually "analysing and questioning" the source of the information - you're attacking the platform it was voiced on, because you - as a partisan right-winger - believes that if anything is said on MSNBC, that's enough to discredit that entire message.

But it's obviously not, and your claim of doing any analysis or questioning of the source is just blatant bullshit.

The same for the Guardian - I've posted articles from them describing scientific studies.
But you can't attack the actual finding of the study, so you simply pretend that the fact that the Guardian wrote an article about the study makes the study partisan.

Again - just complete bullshit from you, there isn't a shred of credibility to the "argument" you're making.

And Slate - that was an article not written by some journalist on Slate, it was a contribution by a professor of psychology.
Yet you try to claim his academic expertise is worthless, because it was published in a magazine you dislike for partisan reason.

And finally and obviously - no, Fox New is obviously not just another "mainstream media source" - it's a right-wing propaganda outlet.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/08/fox-news-has-completed-its-transformation-into-trump-tv/

And from this article, let me highlight this passage:

"In fairness, there are solid, straight-down-the-middle reporters at Fox such as Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, and Shepherd Smith, and a few, increasingly marginalized, commentators such as Charles Krauthammer, Ralph Peters, and Steve Hayes who are critical of Trump. But their work is drowned out by the screeching chorus of Trump toadies that dominates Fox's evening and morning schedule."

I agree - there are a few voices of reality still on Fox New, but note that of the mentioned above Charles Krauthammer has died since this article was written - and Ralph Peters has left the network in disgust and is now openly calling it a "destructive propaganda machine":

http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/07/media/ralph-peters-fox-news-anderson-cooper/index.html

In short - this is the real face of Fox News, compared with something else you might call mainstream news outlet, since this kind of coverage is apparently just fine according to you:

https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1009847187088347136

"But no, both MSNBC and the Guardian are reasonably reliable, you can generally trust them not to actually be lying or anything. But that wasn't my point. My point was that they are both openly supportive of the Democratic party, and thus can often be expected to report things in a way that favours the Democratic party. Which means that whilst the facts may be true, they may be selected to form a particular narrative. You yourself being a supporter of the Democratic party, your use of these sources rather suggests that the media you consume is selected in order to confirm your own existing beliefs, rather than to challenge them."

Ah yes, like you've done before you actually backtrack when you get pushback.
Your first blatant lie didn't get past, so then you try to moderate your message to seem reasonable - but while you're still actually arguing the same false point.
You're still trying to impugn the message simply based on the platform it's from, in the desperate attempt to label all mainstream media as biased.
Which again is precisely what the Nazi's, Soviets and now Trump's right-wing propaganda machine is going.
The Nazi's called it "Lügenpresse", the propaganda claim that all newspaper critical of the Nazis where only printing lies. Donald Trump calls it "fake news". It's the EXACT SAME THING!

And because of right-wing propaganda 42% of Republicans now believe that accurate - but negative - stories qualify as "fake news":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/01/16/study-42-percent-of-republicans-believe-accurate-but-negative-stories-qualify-as-fake-news/?utm_term=.68a21fe39d24

Let that sink in to your claim of Republicans being "better informed". 42% of them actually believe true information is not true - if it is negative of their beloved leader.
These are NOT by any stretch of the imagination "well informed" voters - these are willfully delusional voters, and you're carrying water for the same right-wing propaganda here by pretending as if a non-right-wing platform automatically discredits all information on it.

Your fantasy about whom I support or what media I consume is entirely besides the point and just another attempt at diverting from you false claim.
The platform still doesn't automatically disqualify the message - however much you wish to push that right-wing propaganda claim.

"Note that at no point did I say that the message in those particular videos was biased. I am critiquing you, not your argument, since I have already made my reply to your arguments."

Again with the semantic bullshit argument. You haven't provided any rational critique of any argument I've posted - all you've done is claim that the sources aren't credible and ignored what they're saying, instead relying on your cherry picked sources.

"I read it regularly. But it also created a letter-writing campaign to support the Democrats in the 2004 election. The fact that they openly admit their agenda makes the Guardian in many ways more trustworthy than if they tried to hide it, but the agenda still exists."

As I don't believe a word you're saying that claims means nothing. You're a proven liar, so why should anyone trust you?
Also, even if that claim would be true - how does that automatically make any news printed by the Guardian biased?
You're still not arguing against the actual source for the information - you're only claiming anything published by the Guardian can't be trusted. Or in other words - you're saying it's all "fake news".

"I mean Slate, of course. I'm sorry. Vice is another Democrat-leaning e-zine, and I got them mixed up in my head... you should try Vice, you might like it."

Well as I noted before, the article in Slate I linked to wasn't written by a journalist, but a professor of psychology.
But I guess the mere fact that anything was published in Slate is proof enough to you it must be "fake news" then.
Because information negative to the Republicans and Trump must be "fake news".

Yeah - I understand completely where you're coming from. But unfortunately it's not an argument that convince anyone outside of your narrow partisan trench, mind you.

"Wow. You went full Godwin. Congrats! You lose! Argument over!"

Actually not.
Godwin's Law is nothing more then the claimed probability that Reductio ad Hitlerum will eventually occur in a discussion online.
And Reductio ad Hitlerum in turn doesn't prohibit one from making apt comparisons to Hitler or the Nazis.
And of course, the comparison I made:

"And I reiterate; attacking the free press - instead of being able to critique what the free press actually says - is a hallmark of extremists.
From the Nazi's and the far-right to the Soviet states to now Trump - and tiny little you."

is completely apt.

Because just as the Nazi's, the far-right, the Soviet states and Trump you attack free media not with a critique of what it actually reports - but simply because it reports things you don't want to hear.
To you the Guardian, MSNBC or Slate is what the Nazis called "Lügenpresse", or Trump calls "fake news" - always untrustworthy when they report unflattering news.

But it's very common these days, among those who seek to defend authoritarianism, to claim Godwin's Law (or more correctly Reductio as Hitlerum) as some sort of magical defense against all comparisons to Naziism (even if I in this case didn't only point to Naziism, but all manner of extremism).
But when the comparison is apt - as in this case - the only reason for that defense is of course to shield the relevant parties from justifiable criticism.

Or to put it even simpler, so you might understand: I'm in no way saying you or Trump are like Hitler or the Soviets in any other way here.
I'm simply pointing out that you all share the same propaganda technique of painting all unflattering media coverage as false, because you can't actually mount a coherent criticism of the actual content of the media in question.
Which in turn is a strong sign the media coverage in question is most likely true.
Because if you could counter it with any better argument then sticking your fingers in you ears and shouting "It's all LIES!" at the top of your lungs, you would obviously do so - as anything more then that would be a far more convincing argument.

But claiming bias in all unflattering media is all you have of course, as the facts aren't on your side.

"(Before I go, though, that stuff about how people respond to me... that is *really* detailed. Like this is something you've been through. Please tell me if there's anything I can do to help. Seriously, I know you might interpret this as mockery, but it's not. You may be a little abrasive, but I genuinely don't want you to be unhappy.)"

Yes, it is really detailed.
That's because I used to work in a psychiatric ward, so I've seen what people like you look like up close when they end up there.
Which many do as they become older and their ability to make meaningful connections to other humans becomes a crippling problem.

In their teens and 20's most of these people can employ coping mechanism that get them trough the day.
Like your projections here. It's everyone else's fault you can't make friends - not yours.

Some are able to carry on like that for their entire lives, as emotionally stunted and lonely, but outwardly still functioning members of society.

While others eventually crash and end up in a psychiatric ward.
Which really isn't the worst scenario, after all.
For many, crashing like that is the best thing that could happen to them, as it's a first step for them to realize their own problems and get professional help.

The ones who waste their lives away isolated and lonely because they can't make meaningful human connections and refuse to ever acknowledge their own behavior is the problem are the ones who are truly fucked.

@Nisse_Hult Sorry man, Godwin's Law. Argument's over. You lost. I don't make the rules, Godwin does.

(And no, Godwin's law is actually distinct from reductio ad Hitlerum. )

Also, for someone who has worked on a mental health ward, you're awfully judgy about people with mental health problems. No offence, but I really hope that if I *do* ever end up in one, I'm not being taken care of by anyone remotely like you.

@Nisse_Hult Just fyi, since I have it open: https://www.isidewith.com/en-gb/profile/3494602650/parties

Please, tell me again about how Republican I am?

Scandinavia ATW is in no way obligated to be sensitive to the ideology of American conservatives. Anyone who feels offended by these light jabs needs to do one of two things.

1) Realize that no ideology is exempt from criticism and grow thicker skin.
or
2) Go back your safe space

@Kummerspeck
3. Disagree with that criticism in comments section.
Or is it only for praising comic and agreeing? Some comics think so, they disable comments sections fast.

P.S. Just thought to write that, nothing to do with current strip.

@Kummerspeck Damn you, way you said SatW got me think of Russian SSR.

@Kummerspeck

As an American, I approve of this message!

@Kummerspeck mate you stole on of their terms for #2

"Are mods deleting comments that have anything positive or defensive to say of Trump?"

Not per se. The vast majority of active posters here simply happen to be people who don't like Trump.

And I'm not the one who deleted your comment, just in case you'd start speculating things.

Some of us in America are getting “outrage fatigue”.

@Robot-grrl Small ray of hope: the Democrats have averaged more than a 20-point swing in their favor in the special elections that have occurred over the last year. If that lead holds, they're guaranteed to retake the House, and even the Senate is within reach (barely), despite an overwhelming disadvantage in this year's Senate election.

@kbdick actually... That hope of yours could be dimming rapidly. The US economy is in a state of strong growth and a positive outcome to the Korea talks does reflect strongly on Trump's foreign policy regardless of what his true intentions are, be they actually chasing peace or a self serving cash grab. Either way this is the closest the Koreas have been to peace since the start of the Korean War.

If this pace keeps up November will look very bleak for those who have made it a life goal to put an end to the cheese puff man, Republican, Democrat... Doesn't matter, those who insisted he was satan reborn will wind up getting ousted. As the public will only see the economy growth and families crossing the DMZ to hug each other for the first time in decades. They'll be obliterated.

Hell a lot of people were actually talking on various social media sites (even a few blue check marks) that a nuclear war with NK would be great because it would oust Trump... Which regardless of your opinion they're still advocating thousands and potentially MILLIONS of deaths by nuke just so they can play some moral superiority over how evil Trump was for letting it happen.

It's a dangerous situation for the left in the US. It's either take his side, pray for his failure, or lose everything. Hell even if Trump does fail more people would probably wind up sympathizing with him because of the media outlets dancing in the street over all the dead bodies and how Trump's to blame.

@ProfNekko What a silly conclusion you're going for.

You're saying ''Closest the Koreas have been to peace'', is a both an optimistic and ignorant view of it. As we've been at this junction before in the peace negotiations.

Second, if foreign policy is to be a ''winning'' area of the Trump presidency, then he is failing spectacularly. As what he does in negotiations with a nation of 25 million does not matter much compared to damaging relations with the countries largest allies and trading partners numbering several hundreds of millions of people, and the largest markets for american goods and services. Not to mention a trade war with the second biggest economy on earth, China.

Both allies and enemies of the US is answering to the sanctions making this a totally new point in history, where the worlds largest economies are actually uniting against the US policies. You ever heard the expression divide and conquer? Well the US has made a new one, Unite and fight, basically uniting the only powers capable of hurting US economic interests instead of allying with one and fighting another.

''a lot of people'' is basically you talking out of your ass. Lastly one can agree with Trump pardoning people without accepting his presidency as anything other than chaotic and incompetent.

@cmL

A very astute analysis of Trump's self-defeating trade wars.
The only thing he has going for him is the strong economy he inherited from Obama - and like everything else Obama ever did for the US, Trump now seems intent on wrecking it.

And together with that alliances and a world order it took the US it's participation in both world wars, hundreds of thousands of casualties and trillions upon trillions of dollars to build.

Trump is truly the best present Putin could ever wish for.
Or possibly bought for himself - we'll have to wait and see what Mueller's report says.

@Robot-grrl
I feel for you, Americans with brains and a heart.
It must be tough to face the anger of people who won't tell the difference between "your" president and you, the nice Americans. Let's hope the next elections bring out a clear change and it may come...
I heard that the students of Parkland were going to travel through the States to ask for more gun control. They are admirable.
Anyway, don't give up to "outrage fatigue", your opponents are counting on that.

Trump goes on and on about how he'll stand up to North Korea, calls Kim names like a kindergartener, very much tries to establish himself as Kim's enemy, then gives him exactly what he wants, free rewards for zero effort... Really showin' a lot of backbone there, fella...

Living in the USA is basically just watching as everything slowly burns down and, whenever somebody tries to put out the fire, some rich guy convinces all the idiots in our country that there either is no fire or that THEY will put it out even while they openly fan the flames.

@OneOfThemOregonians Very negative outlook on life you have there. I think the world's shitty too and America is probably headed for inevitable disaster, but for entirely different reasons. Funny how that works. I guess it all comes down to where you get your propaganda from.

@Alex_Greathouse

You might be consuming propaganda, but OneOfThemOregonians doesn't seem to be.

Instead that's a quite accurate description of what Trump did in regards to North Korea and why the US is so far behind the rest of the democratic west.
The vast majority of republican voters are voting for policies and leaders that only hurt their own interests, while enriching a tiny little clique enormously.
And they're doing so because they live in an alternate reality, constructed by right-wing propaganda, where the same policies that screw them are said to be good for them.

Right-wing propaganda that is being paid for by that tiny little rich clique that screws the rest of America over.

So OneOfThemOregonians description is quite accurate, as I said.

@Nisse_Hult Dude, what are you talking about? I think you've missed my point entirely. As I said, the way America is portrayed I do not have a problem with. It's the way the EU is portrayed that gets to me. All of the points you made are completely irrelevant, except for maybe this one: "It's not that Europe or the EU is perfect - it's that it's simply competent"

I'd beg to differ. I'd also beg to differ on another point: "The EU - both as a community and as individual nations - have the same kind of problems every nation always had and always will have."

That last point is especially concerning because it completely plays off all the problems of the EU as unimportant, nothing the world's never seen before. That sort of mentality is what allows for the continuing degradation of Europe through the authority of the EU. The problems the EU is facing are not small, they're not easily fixed, and they're not so entirely common throughout history in regards to any long-prospering nation (yes EU isn't a country, you get what I mean).

Continued economical struggles, large influxes of unskilled workers with different cultural values, increased censorship, increased crime, are all problems nations in the past have had, that is true. These problems aren't exactly going away, though. They're increasing, they're increasing steadily, and little the EU has done to try and solve it's issues. Many of it's problems aren't even acknowledged as problematic by many, many leaders within the EU.

And I'll mention it again just to get the word out there because it'a such an important topic, articles 13 and 11 both completely stripe fair use, the thing which allows for memes, parodies of songs, political commentary, and so many other aspects that make the internet an amazing place. That's so competent, isn't it? The EU politicians are such sane actors, aren't they? I mean, in the midst of so much chaos in Europe, they decide to not waste any time and pass this extremely sane bill that will definitely solve problems and not create more, am I right?

No nation is sane. No government is competent. No monolithic, bureaucratic conglomeration of several nations with different economical communities, cultures, and ideology is ever a hub for sanity in the world.

And yes, I am consuming propaganda. So are you. So is OneOfThemOregonians. Propaganda is everywhere. It's in every political movement, every opinion, every news report, intentionally or unintentionally. Every society runs on propaganda. I know that seems an insane statement to make, but it's kinda true. No one perspective can give the full picture of reality, but only a few perspectives is what most people listen to through no fault of their own, but simply because they're human.

Anyways, nice chatting. No promise you'll get another response because I'm not sure I'm ever gonna visit this site again, not really my cup of tea. Does have some pretty funny comics though.

@Alex_Greathouse I wouldn't really call it negative seeing as I'm hoping the fire does get put out and I do my best to help with that through voting. I want to believe that Americans will come to their senses, that the Electoral College will be dissolved, that future politicians will actually serve this country rather than serve themselves, etc. But that's not a likely outcome. And these are my own ideas and my own opinions, based on facts, not propaganda.

I miss the old Satw comics, about the silly things the three countries do

@Fluffybunny
Ikr, I just read all the old ones because I miss Denmark Sweden and Norway

@Justsomerandomwords
me too

@Fluffybunny Same, there is just something that isnt there.

@Fluffybunny Same as well. However, I think it’s because there may be some more things to talk about than before now, which is why there’s not many comics of them just messing around? Idk.