[hrothgar]

Trump is now claiming that he / his policies are responsible for $35 insulin prices

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2024-June-10, 11:59, said:

Trump is now claiming that he / his policies are responsible for $35 insulin prices

The details of why are unimportant, but today I had to spend a couple of hours in close proximity to a handful of Trump supporters who blabbed nonstop. I'm sure everyone has met this type, two guys who were once in the Army, likely lifers who seemed more brainwashed than stupid and think everything the Army does is the best it can be done-you know the type, really gung-ho, and all they could spout was Constisution this, Constitution that, militia this, militia that, guns this, guns that.... The amount of total crap they spread in that 2 hours was incredible, and joining in was an evangelical Christian woman quoting all the Bible verses that showed Biden was either A. demon possessed B. the antichrist or C. a fulfillment of some inane prophecy that has nothing to do with anything. Biden was found at fault for milk prices being too high, for anything that wasn't Trump. It was obvious that these three believed totally in their delusions and nothing could have reached them.

It was demoralizing to see such depth of gullability. But the deeper issue to me is more troubling: these beliefs are part of these peoples personalities, part of the "self". To challenge those beliefs even with innocuous questions is to upend the person's stability - they simply cannot allow any shaking of their beliefs as that shakes the very core of self. To change their minds requires a tearing down of self and a rebuilding of a new ego. I would guess somewhere well south of 1% are willing to do that.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2024-June-10, 11:55, said:

Perhaps that is how you understood it but that is not what I intended in my post. You point, so it seems, to the Democratic leadership as a reason disgruntled voters aren't abandoning Trump. What I'm saying is that these disgruntled voters are like the followers of Jim Jones in Guyana and that the media is reporting on the killing of the Congressmen who went to investigate as simply normal politics.

There is something that can be done. I can't do it. You can't do it. It requires that we do it as a nation. It requires active politics and voting. It requires self-governance. I doubt we do it.

This is preetty much what I undestood you to be saying. Sure, someting might happen. But your listof possibilities does not include any rethinking by the Democratic leadership. My point, and it has been my point for quite a while now, is that when Trump, always a truly bad guy and now really an almost incoherent bad guy, can be in contention for the presidency the Democratic leadership should at least consider the possibility that maybe they have made a mistake or two. My entire life has taught me that when things go wrong it is useful to look for errors that I might have made.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2024-June-10, 20:56, said:

The details of why are unimportant, but today I had to spend a couple of hours in close proximity to a handful of Trump supporters who blabbed nonstop. I'm sure everyone has met this type, two guys who were once in the Army, likely lifers who seemed more brainwashed than stupid and think everything the Army does is the best it can be done-you know the type, really gung-ho, and all they could spout was Constisution this, Constitution that, militia this, militia that, guns this, guns that.... The amount of total crap they spread in that 2 hours was incredible, and joining in was an evangelical Christian woman quoting all the Bible verses that showed Biden was either A. demon possessed B. the antichrist or C. a fulfillment of some inane prophecy that has nothing to do with anything. Biden was found at fault for milk prices being too high, for anything that wasn't Trump. It was obvious that these three believed totally in their delusions and nothing could have reached them.

It was demoralizing to see such depth of gullability. But the deeper issue to me is more troubling: these beliefs are part of these peoples personalities, part of the "self". To challenge those beliefs even with innocuous questions is to upend the person's stability - they simply cannot allow any shaking of their beliefs as that shakes the very core of self. To change their minds requires a tearing down of self and a rebuilding of a new ego. I would guess somewhere well south of 1% are willing to do that.

I almost, well not really, wish I had been there. I would like to ask if there could be basic agreement on the following: The fact that 12 jurors voted unaminously to convice Hunter Biden is a strong reason to believe that Hunter Biden did what the prosecutors said that he did, and the fact that 12 jurors voted unaminously to convict Donald Trump is a strong reason to believe that Donald Trump did what the prosecutors said that he did. Can people agree to that simple statement? They are free to have divergent views about many asppects of the two cases but can they agree on what seems to me to be indisputable? When 12 jurors gree that the defendant is guilty, it is very likel, not certain but very likely, that the defendant did what the prosecutor said that he did.

As I and just about everyone has noticed, we seem to have trouble agreeing on what day of the week it is. But we should still try. 12 jurors can make a mistake, yep they can, but they try their best and if all 12 aree that he did it, it is vey likely that he did it. It would be good if we could all agree on that much. My guess is that no, we can't agree on even that. That is seriously upsetting. We must do better.

[pilowsky]

It is a truism in politics - and life in general - that people are rarely convinced of anything because someone tells them that what they are thinking is wrong.
It's even less useful to tell them they stupid, irrational and that all their dearly-held beliefs are going to cause the world to end tomorrow.

Progressives (if such a thing actually exists in the USA) are not likely to secure votes by telling Conservatives that (inter alia):
They can't have guns.
They can have abortions.
Immigration is good.
America is racist and has structural inequalities.
The economy is in great shape.

On top of that bonfire you can throw in the gasoline of Middle East and Ukraine wars, gender identity and the truly bizarre idea that speech is free but books that some communities (or 'folks' as Americans like to say) don't like should be banned.

[awm]

There's something strange going on with views of the economy though. It used to be that polls of what Americans thought about the economy matched up pretty well to economic indicators. About twenty years ago (I think) we started seeing bigger partisan divides on the economy (people thought it was better when their party held the presidency and worse when it didn't) but the overall average still tracked pretty well with things like the unemployment rate, stock market trends, GDP growth, consumer confidence, etc.

Something seems to have happened quite recently to create this disconnect, where people agree that their family's economic situation is good/improving and even that their state is doing well, but think that the national economy is terrible even though the various economic indicators are strong. It's not solely a partisan thing either.

The one thing that sticks out for me is the bout of severe inflation, which we hadn't seen since the late 1970s (when the country and the news media were both quite different than they are today). People see that prices went up and feel like this is bad even though their income may have gone up by more. Thus they can say that their family's situation is good (because income increased by more than prices) but still feel unhappy about the price increase.

I also feel like there was a lot more coverage of economists' predictions of a recession than we used to see (and those predictions were not very accurate as no recession materialized). And it's possible that people complaining about things on social media had an impact.

[kenberg]

I agree, at least in genreal, with the above two posts. And I want to note an error, or at least a lzazy statement, in my own post where I said " My guess is that no, we can't agree on even that. ". The "that" was that if 12 jurors agree on a guilty verdict then this should be taken as strong reason to believe that the defendant did what the prosecutor said that he did. Of course some, perhaps many, Trump suppotters will not agree. But I strongly believe there are some out there, people who are at least strongy thinking of voting for Trump, who would still agree to this basic point. Those are the people we need to talk with, to have constructive conversations with., both because disccion is good and because such people might well swing the eledtion. As AWM notes, "Something seems to have happened quite recently to create this disconnect, where people agree that their family's economic situation is good/improving and even that their state is doing well, but think that the national economy is terrible even though the various economic indicators are strong. " Yep, it's weird. But I think, at least I hope but really I think it likely, that there are some out there who are not quite ready to drink the Kool-Aid just because someone says so. There is some room, with some people, for discussion. Let's at least give it a try.

[Winstonm]

awm, on 2024-June-13, 02:54, said:

There's something strange going on with views of the economy though. It used to be that polls of what Americans thought about the economy matched up pretty well to economic indicators. About twenty years ago (I think) we started seeing bigger partisan divides on the economy (people thought it was better when their party held the presidency and worse when it didn't) but the overall average still tracked pretty well with things like the unemployment rate, stock market trends, GDP growth, consumer confidence, etc.

Something seems to have happened quite recently to create this disconnect, where people agree that their family's economic situation is good/improving and even that their state is doing well, but think that the national economy is terrible even though the various economic indicators are strong. It's not solely a partisan thing either.

The one thing that sticks out for me is the bout of severe inflation, which we hadn't seen since the late 1970s (when the country and the news media were both quite different than they are today). People see that prices went up and feel like this is bad even though their income may have gone up by more. Thus they can say that their family's situation is good (because income increased by more than prices) but still feel unhappy about the price increase.

I also feel like there was a lot more coverage of economists' predictions of a recession than we used to see (and those predictions were not very accurate as no recession materialized). And it's possible that people complaining about things on social media had an impact.

It appears to me (relying only on untrustworthy memory) that this change is at least somewhat in common with the advent of cable news and the death of strong FCC oversight, including the Fairness Doctrine. It was the beginning of creating alternative facts, which is truly weird yet true in the sense that what is believed is that person's truth.

I don't know what can be done. The unwind at this point requires changes at the individual level. There is a tad bit of hope in that church attendence is falling and the number of Americans who claim no religious belief is rising but those numbers move slowly and incrementally so can't be counted on to make a difference in time for the next election.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2024-June-12, 19:12, said:

I almost, well not really, wish I had been there. I would like to ask if there could be basic agreement on the following: The fact that 12 jurors voted unaminously to convice Hunter Biden is a strong reason to believe that Hunter Biden did what the prosecutors said that he did, and the fact that 12 jurors voted unaminously to convict Donald Trump is a strong reason to believe that Donald Trump did what the prosecutors said that he did. Can people agree to that simple statement? They are free to have divergent views about many asppects of the two cases but can they agree on what seems to me to be indisputable? When 12 jurors gree that the defendant is guilty, it is very likel, not certain but very likely, that the defendant did what the prosecutor said that he did.

As I and just about everyone has noticed, we seem to have trouble agreeing on what day of the week it is. But we should still try. 12 jurors can make a mistake, yep they can, but they try their best and if all 12 aree that he did it, it is vey likely that he did it. It would be good if we could all agree on that much. My guess is that no, we can't agree on even that. That is seriously upsetting. We must do better.

I can pretty much assure you of what their response would have been to any questions about jury trials. I have experience with this in that a sister-in-law is knee-deep in right-wing disinformation/propagnda. The short answer is that they will parrot whatever the latest spin is from their information sources, Fox News, Sinclair Broadcasting, Alex Jones, various internet blogs and sites, Facefook/Meta, and the entire Republica Party: Hunter Biden should have been convicted on more serious crimes and Trump was innocent and Biden made the state of New York convict him.

I mean, seriously, if you believe a dead body that has undergone the normal after death deterioration can by magic (I'm thinking Lazarus, not Jesus) be resurrected intact and whole after some number of days, what won't you believe?