This is topic Look the Other Way in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/16873.html

Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
This is about confirmation bias and how it is reflected in the political aspirations of candidates vying now in their Parties for the nomination for President in next year's election.

To be more specific, when a candidate says something about some relevant topic, they usually also *aren't* saying certain things. For instance, has any GOP candidate commented on the shootings yesterday at the Planned Parenthood center in Colorado? Why not? Have any of them commented on the recent killings of unarmed blacks? Why not?

All candidates have commented on the recent Paris slaughter by ISIS, but what are they saying and not saying? Do any of them say that the US should join forces with France in their new-found dedication to destroy ISIS? I thought that was a major theme for those in the GOP.

Some of these commissions and omissions are rooted in obvious beliefs. You won't hear any GOP candidate point out that all men and women have a right to privacy in medical matters, because that would imply that women can decide how to handle unwanted pregnancies. Instead they talk about the rights of the unborn. OTOH, you won't hear Clinton or Sanders talk about the sanctity of all human life, because they think women should have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy privately without government interference. No candidate of either Party would be willing to discuss how their view on abortion conflicts with deaths due to gun violence.

These are just a few brief looks at some of the non-dialogue that candidates are having with the voting public. It obviously serves their interests to focus on what they think will motivate people to vote for them, but it also reveals sometimes deep hypocrisies in their thinking habits and patterns.

I'm hoping that in this thread we can focus on how and why what we don't hear matters as much as what we do.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
Except that none of the examples you gave were about confirmation bias, because they all dealt with declarations of values rather than discussions of fact.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
I may have misstated the premise. By not talking about certain things the politicians are appealing to the bounded beliefs and predilections of their audience. In that sense it is confirmation bias for the voter, because their favored politician only talks about what they're willing to listen to and agree with. In any case, feel free to respond to what I did say or didn't say [Smile] .

[ November 28, 2015, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
So your premise is that politicians will stick to saying things that will get them the most support?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Al, you are confusing politician and political candidate. The job of a political candidate is to get elected. Given that you support a president who lied outright about his beliefs motives politics and agenda back when he was a candidate,methinks you strain at a gnat when you berate mere candidates from expressing firm views on every topic that excites you. What did Obama say during the Bosnia debacle when systematic gun control was used to leave Muslim families defenseless against rape gangs and mass murder?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
I'm confused. What is this thread about?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
How to selectively take a gerrymandered slice of facts that vilifies one party's political candidates and not the other? Sliding Republican Pres candidates for "looking the other way" because they haven't issues public statements about some obscure homicide in I forget where?

(Obscure to me means not reported in the Guardian or BBC.)
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
You won't hear any GOP candidate point out that all men and women have a right to privacy in medical matters, because that would imply that women can decide how to handle unwanted pregnancies. Instead they talk about the rights of the unborn.

Pete is right in that the thread is apparently about how Republicans are hypocrites. Maybe some of them are, but your first step should be to find a way to state their beliefs accurately before ridiculing them. Otherwise you end up with a silly straw man. The quote above is riddled with multiple biases and logical problems, and it makes to very hard to take seriously the notion of political lies by omission. If you want to have a discussion on that topic then there's plenty to say, but it won't go anywhere if your starting point is Republicans are bad and Democrats are good. You've missed the whole problem with politics in that case, which is structure, not particular beliefs of those in the structure.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
So, straighten it out. Take the high road, be objective, non-partisan, fair-minded. I can handle it, and maybe it would be a good discussion, after all.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
I have no problem bluntly stating that I think Republicans are currently less interested in facts than the other party. There's no need to be coy about it, Al.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
I do agree, but I'm open to having it go both ways. I started this thread because of conversations I began with family and friends at Thanksgiving dinner that continued through yesterday. We were trying to understand the appeal of candidates in both Parties and were repeatedly frustrated that in order to understand what they really meant we had to keep adding missing ("negative") parts to their positions. That applied to Hillary and Bernie as well as the cast of characters on the GOP side.

I think it matters because the eventual winner of the election will have to deal with aspects of almost every major issue that they didn't bother to talk about, but could have and should have. Did Obama lie as Pete says or were his stated objectives overwhelmed by other considerations. Should he have said, "My goal is to close Guantanamo, but I will need the help of Congress to do it."

It's unfortunate that no candidate is willing to say what they will do "unless..." even though they know very well that the "unless..." conditions can happen. What would they do if they did? I don't accept that all politicians have to feed red meat to their base and nothing else. It's insulting and deceiving.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
I have no problem bluntly stating that I think Republicans are currently less interested in facts than the other party. There's no need to be coy about it, Al.

"Facts".
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Feel free to jump in. The water's muddy.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
So, straighten it out. Take the high road, be objective, non-partisan, fair-minded. I can handle it, and maybe it would be a good discussion, after all.

If you can ask others to take an objective nonpartisan high-minded approach to one of your "Republikuns are eevul bekuzz" threads, one might as well ask you to take take an objective nonpartisan high-minded approach to a RafiO4,special. You have made an unfair accusation based on a zet of ludicrous premises.

If it's OK for Barry the Messiah to lie to get elected, what's so bleeding wrong about GOP candidates speaking truthfully about the topics that suit them?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Did Obama lie as Pete says or were his stated objectives overwhelmed by other considerations. Should he have said, "My goal is to close Guantanamo, but I will need the help of Congress to do it."


That's plausible. A good reason, BTW, for candidates to shut the **** up about ongoing criminal investigations is that they aren't privy to the facts or investigative strategy.

But you have cherry picked an example. Can you show that Barry didn't lie to voters about his position on same sex marriage?
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Can you show that he didn't just change his mind?
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
I'm not sure why several posters have reacted as if the OP was entirely partisan.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Can you show that he didn't just change his mind?

Depends on whether you mean the sane thing I do by "show"

He couched the dissemblance in language about his "religion" which (I told you at the time, years before he came out as a duck everything else ssm supporter, that Barry only brought up his religion in connection to a political position when he was pretending to take a conservative view. Whenever Barry says my religion teaches me X but my mind is open, when X is the antithesis of what was ACTUALLY taught in Obama's chosen church, well obviously we are being lied to.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I'm not sure why several posters have reacted as if the OP was entirely partisan.

Hmm. I was going to say something sarcastic to that, but then I went back and read a number of things that I missed on the first read. For example:

"OTOH, you won't hear Clinton or Sanders talk about the sanctity of all human life, because they think women should have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy privately without government interference. "

It's ironic that I missed that, because I have complained often that Al and others here have read my posts through the assumption that I am some species of dittohead. And here I just did basically the same to Al.

Sorry, Al. Thank you SciFi
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I'm not sure why several posters have reacted as if the OP was entirely partisan.

Actually I think Al's intent was to try to avoid being partisan but he was unable to help himself. The actual wording was partisan, but the stated intent was to get past that and pick out what candidates fail to say.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Have any of them commented on the recent killings of unarmed blacks? Why not?"

I think if you read through the list of case facts, you may see why comment for political consumption would seem inappropriate.

I didn't realize, for instance, that a person who lays hands on a police officer's gun was considered "unarmed"=

I think disparate poverty, despair, lack of opportunity, and being raised in an environment of violence, drugs and racial victimhood, accounts for a greater number of these killings than actual racist intent by police officers. (Someone who thinks police are out to get him is more likely to behave in such a way that will lead to getting killed by cops).With that said, Racism among some cops obviously still exists and any casualties due to that are too many. But I think the most obvious measure we could take to reduce casualties of police racism is a race neutral mechanism: enact a federal law protecting the right to record law enforcement officers without their consent, and enact stiff penalties on police departments that get rid of such recordings.
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1