Fear trumps facts

[Pete at Home]

I discovered today that when FOX News reported on Trump being tied for the second most admired man in the world, they somehow failed to mention that Obama was the first.  They also failed to mention that Hillary was voted the most admired woman in the world.  One error could be called a mistake, two would be termed policy.

What fishy study is this that puts Obama as #1 and Trump as #2 for WORLD popularity?  Where would Trump garner world popularity? 

[scifibum]

I think "in the world" refers to the location of the man or woman, not the voters. 

It seems to be from this Gallup poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1678/most-admired-man-woman.aspx

I'm guessing the voters were American, given that the historical results are almost all US politicians or their spouses.

[AI Wessex]

Gallup asked Americans.  You might have guess that, as I'm sure FOX did when they were deciding how to announce the results.

[Wayward Son]

FiveThirtyEight has an interesting article today, talking about Trump supporters.  They classify them as primarily misinformed, rather than uninformed.

But perhaps more importantly, his supporters have shown signs of being misinformed. Political science research has shown that the behavior of misinformed citizens is different from those who are uninformed, and this difference may explain Trump’s unusual staying power...

In 2000, James Kuklinski and other political scientists at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign established an important distinction: American citizens with incorrect information can be divided into two groups, the misinformed and the uniformed. The difference between the two is stark. Uninformed citizens don’t have any information at all, while those who are misinformed have information that conflicts with the best evidence and expert opinion. As Kuklinski and his colleagues established, in the U.S., the most misinformed citizens tend to be the most confident in their views and are also the strongest partisans. These folks fill the gaps in their knowledge base by using their existing belief systems. Once these inferences are stored into memory, they become “indistinguishable from hard data,” Kuklinski and his colleagues found.

Furthermore, in 2010, political scientists Brendan Nyhan1 and Jason Reifler2 found that when misinformed citizens are told that their facts are wrong, they often cling to their opinions even more strongly with what is known as defensive processing, or the “backfire effect.”

Strong partisans are more likely to participate in the primary process, making it also likely that at least some highly engaged primary voters are also confidently misinformed and unwilling to accept contradictory evidence.

Telltale signs of misinformation, for example, were on display in a focus group of Trump supporters run by Republican media consultant Frank Luntz. Not only did negative information about Trump that was presented by Luntz to the group strengthen support for the candidate, participants held on more confidently to their misinformation as the session progressed. As Nyhan and Reifler’s research suggests, attempts to present corrections and generate counterarguments to the group’s beliefs only strengthened their opinions. The persistent claims by Trump and his supporters that his critics are too concerned with political correctness is a good example of this psychological process at work.

It is in Trump’s interest to allow misinformation — such as his statements about immigrants or Muslim Americans — to flourish. New work by Jennifer Hochschild of Harvard and Katherine Levine Einstein of Boston University found that there are incentives for politicians to keep citizens both misinformed and politically active. For most politicians, it doesn’t make sense to use precious resources to try to move or dissuade people from their incorrect positions — especially if this misinformation supports the political actor’s policy positions or legislative goals (as it does in Trump’s case). Instead, “the investment of resources goes much further in efforts to work around, accommodate, or even encourage the active misinformed,” the researchers write. Moreover, Hochschild and Einstein remind us that people find psychological comfort in having their opinions validated by others, especially by elites. So, there are many cases in which it makes more sense for politicians to encourage people to stay misinformed rather than try to provide them with accurate information.

Don’t expect Trump’s fans to abandon him anytime soon. And while there are reasons to think Trump supporters may be less likely to vote, that many seem misinformed is one reason to think they will.

Of course, this is a two-edged sword, and Clinton supporters may be just as badly misinformed as Trumps.  But it is something to consider, and worry about.

[Seriati]

Did you follow any of their links.  Their non-expert "opinion" on whether Trump supporters are misinformed seems to based on be the Washington Post article describing how negative attacks made support for him stronger.  There wasn't any evidence that there was any misinformation played a material role in that process in that report, and in fact it proffered other plausible explanations.  This one isn't even the typical make liberal's feel good about themselves fake science, because the study cited had nothing to do with Trump's supporters (it was published years ago), and it's the author who's drawing a parallel (poorly) between the observed behaviors.

What exactly are you claiming that the Trump supporters are misinformed about?

[scifibum]

Seriati, did YOU follow the links? There are several examples of misinformed beliefs in Trump supporters. Ones that have previously been demonstrated in Obama haters.

[Fenring]

the most misinformed citizens tend to be the most confident in their views and are also the strongest partisans.

Something to remember here on Ornery.

[Seriati]

I did follow the links, and I'm happy to hear what the misinformed beliefs you think they hold are.  That is however, a far cry from any of kind rigor in determining if they are motivated by misinformation or whether it would show in their behavior.  The original study itself has issues, this non-study attribution is so far beyond just having issues it's laughable.

Might as well just say that everyone supporting any candidate is motivated by misinformation.  The same "behaviors" certainly appear in Hillary supporters and Obama supporters as well.

[Fenring]

It should be noted that people now are encouraged to be so partisan that once they've chosen a side they'll back any statements made by their chosen leader regardless of the particulars. We see very often here that Obama supporters, for instance, are reluctant to criticize anything at all that he ever says or does. I recognize that they're in the position of having to defend him on a regular basis against partisan criticism, but the "if I give in on this point it will seem like I'm abetting the other side" issue probably impedes the ability to like Obama for instance but to strongly criticize him on certain particulars. The tendency is rather to embrace a leader wholesale and to find reasons to support things he says even if a particular point is erroneous.

Based on this general tendency I would suggest that even if Trump supporters are misled on some issues (if) it doesn't follow from that premise that they support him because they are misled. That is the causation that really cannot be shown. They may have very good reasons to support him, for instance, and once they've 'chosen their horse' they're going to fight hard with themselves and others to back up anything and everything he says, right or wrong. This is actually a quite understandable bias, especially so when he's in a race to win the Presidency and 'winning' is a factor in whether or not to back up his individual positions. It would not help his campaign, for instance, for Trump supports to say "Yeah he's wrong about some things but we like him anyhow." People in this climate would see that as betraying their candidate, and the fault here is not in Trump's supporters but rather in the entire political system. I think the solution is not to call out supporters of a demagogue (defined simply as someone who optimally uses persuasion) but rather to address issues like campaign finance, media relation to politics, and lobbying. For any Democrat who has a problem with Trump's supporters, instead of complaining about them my advice would be to vote for Bernie, since he is addressing these issues. For anyone who likes things as they are and wants stability vote for Hillary, but then you could expect campaign to continue on in this fashion or worse, since the ballooning of campaign budgets is continually on the rise.

[Wayward Son]

Their non-expert "opinion" on whether Trump supporters are misinformed seems to based on be the Washington Post article describing how negative attacks made support for him stronger.  There wasn't any evidence that there was any misinformation played a material role in that process in that report, and in fact it proffered other plausible explanations.

The latter part of the article made clear that the group was exposed to facts that contradicted Trump, and it only made them more resolute in their support.

Luntz moved on to questions about Trump’s claim that “thousands of Muslims” had “cheered the collapse of the World Trade Center.” Almost no one doubted Trump; more than a few people wondered why this was controversial. The youngest member of the group wondered why he never saw Muslims in the streets protesting terrorism. Kelly said that there was fresh audio evidence of Muslims celebrating the San Bernardino shooting, though he could not immediately recall the source...

Nothing seemed to budge the Trump voters. Almost all of them agreed that Clinton had committed crimes. Almost all agreed that the last Republican president had been wrong to invade Iraq in 2003. Finally, Luntz asked for a thought experiment — to imagine incontrovertible proof that Clinton would win if Trump split the vote. Only then did the group agree to vote Republican over Trump...

“In that scenario, sure,” said a middle-aged participant named Michael. “But that won’t happen. Trump would win.”

That confidence only grew as Trump’s alleged gaffes and mistakes were laid out. At 6:30 p.m., when the session began, all 29 participants were asked to rate their likelihood of voting for Trump, and just 10 people said they were at nine or 10. After one hour of mostly negative questions about Trump, six more people joined that confident group...

Almost nothing was changing that picture. The group heard Trump insist that the wives of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had been warned in advance and sent home. They saw Trump mock a New York Times reporter with a disability who had written about reports of post-Sept. 11 celebrations. Some people winced; more of them rationalized what Trump had been saying. “The real issue is that the reporter retracted his story after 14 years,” Scrima said.

(The reporter, Serge Kovaleski, then with The Washington Post, never retracted his article describing reports of a tailgate-style party of Muslims after 9/11. The article never described thousands of Muslims celebrating, and when interviewed about the article this year Kovaleski said he did not recall any reports describing numbers of that magnitude.)

It is pretty clear that information that contradicted Trumps pronouncements was presented to the group, and it only made the group more resolute in their support of Trump.

And as far as being informed...

Asked whether the president was a Christian, only three of the 29 participants raised their hands. Asked whether he was born in the United States, eight said no. When Luntz returned to policy, mistrust of the president informed the exclamations of trust in Trump.

“Donald Trump says that President Obama wants to allow 250,000 Syrian refugees to come into the country,” Luntz said. “Who thinks that is mostly true?”

Nearly every hand shot up.

“Do you know that Obama has said he wants only 10,000 refugees?” Luntz asked.

“What’s in his heart?” asked one participant.

“He’d let as many in as possible,” insisted another.

“It happens again and again,” said Jeff Scrima, 38, who moved to the D.C. area after serving as mayor of Waukesha, Wis. “The State Department says one thing, Obama says something else, and they change the policy to match him.”

They believe Trump's lies when presented with the facts, and support him more afterward.  This is pretty consistent with the earlier study cited.

[Fenring]

The latter part of the article made clear that the group was exposed to facts that contradicted Trump, and it only made them more resolute in their support.

Aside from Seriati's calling into question whether they were, in fact, misinformed, my question is why you think the fact that they were misinformed implies that their increased support was because of the fact that they were misinformed. Did it occur to you that the factor in play here may actually be loyalty, where when presented with facts in contradiction with Trump's statements they felt their allegiance to Trump was being questioned and their natural human response was to rally to their guy? This doesn't make them dumb, but rather might show that they believe in loyalty more so than being right all the time. That's a value judgement and is beyond what such a simple study can address.

Incidentally I wouldn't put too much stock in studies that purport to compare people's beliefs as they correlate to 'the truth', since truth and fact have been so much damaged by the political system that it is actually foolish to then turn around and call people out for not believing too much in the latest "facts." People know now from experience that "facts" can be thrown about easily but that these seldom correspond with reality. People can be told that the economy is "improving" and that unemployment is "low" and yet they see with their own eyes that it isn't so. They can be told that the U.S. is "fighting for peace" in Syria even when a cursory glance at what's going on doesn't correspond to this. Most people have enough common sense to know that regime change isn't "fighting for peace", and so language is degraded and undermined and people have to stick with their gut feelings rather than follow the whimsy of every "fact" that is spewed out at them.

What you need to look at isn't who is more right, but whether the other side is on to something legitimate even if you don't agree with it. Is fear of mid-East refugee immigration understandable, even if you don't agree with it? Forget whatever stat of the week comes in to support it; can you see the point behind some of Trump's positions, notwithstanding the veracity if every confident statement he makes? People are backing him for some reason or another, and if you try to write it all off as "they're misled" I think you're on the wrong track in the game of putting yourself in the other person's place, and more on the track of winning the debate.

[D.W.]

Well Obama is (along with many democrats) badly misinformed on guns yet I still support him.  When you aren't a single issue voter, you do tend to "let things slide" that you disagree with or would otherwise criticize.  When "your president" or "your candidate" does something wrong but on the whole is still miles ahead to anyone the opposition would field, you have a tendency to just let others point out these faults.  I also don't rail against him for pushing executive power for all it's worth.  I find it reckless as it sets bad precedent even if I do sometimes agree with his motivation to take action and sympathies with his frustration.

We are pretty much stuck with a two party system and the best we can do is try not to conform to all being cookie cutter partisan drones.  There is nothing wrong with siding with those who offend your ideals the least when another side offends them consistently and to a larger degree.  Politics is always a compromise.  We pick the lesser of two evils because most of the time, both options ARE dangerously ambitions (if not evil).

[D.W.]

Part of the support is a rejection of being told what to believe by those who claim to know better than you.  If you "prove" to them they are misinformed they MAY (just maybe) concede they were incorrect, but they will hate you for it and oppose you more strongly.  To many liberal is synonymous with smug smarty pants who delight in pointing out other's ignorance.  Actually doing so reinforces that stereotype.  There are people who focus MUCH more on the (perceived) condescending attitude than they do the information conveyed.  So much in fact that defeating or reducing the influence of those liberals is more important than the truth.

Throw into that any hint of religious persecution or derision (which is not uncommon) and they just stop listening.  The ability to direct that sentiment as well as playing off xenophobia and security or economic fears and it's not a huge shock that Trump has a following.  The size of that following surprises me a little I'll admit. 

The man is a master manipulator, like the Clinton's.  It's just not the same flavor we are use to seeing in presidential politics.  Most are, umm... more subtle?

[Fenring]

There are people who focus MUCH more on the (perceived) condescending attitude than they do the information conveyed.  So much in fact that defeating or reducing the influence of those liberals is more important than the truth.

Throw into that any hint of religious persecution or derision (which is not uncommon) and they just stop listening.

Very good points.

[Wayward Son]

Aside from Seriati's calling into question whether they were, in fact, misinformed, my question is why you think the fact that they were misinformed implies that their increased support was because of the fact that they were misinformed. Did it occur to you that the factor in play here may actually be loyalty, where when presented with facts in contradiction with Trump's statements they felt their allegiance to Trump was being questioned and their natural human response was to rally to their guy? This doesn't make them dumb, but rather might show that they believe in loyalty more so than being right all the time. That's a value judgment and is beyond what such a simple study can address.

The bottom line is this: part of their support (in this case for Trump) is based on misinformation.  When presented with contradicting facts, they reject the facts and increase their support.  This is in direct contradiction to what we would expect as a rational response.

Whether it is from loyalty, or not wanting to be told they are wrong, or whatever emotion, it is not a rational basis for making a decision.  And when presented with the truth, and becoming more entrenched with the lie, well, that only leads to more trouble.  Because any decision based on bad "facts" will inevitably leads to bad outcomes, because reality won't conform to bad "facts."

I really don't care why people will double-down in belief and support when presented with corrections to their misperceptions.  I just worry what will happen when loyalty or orneriness or whatever trumps reality.  We all will suffer when ideology becomes more important than reality.

[D.W.]

Understanding it is what's important.  Unless you just like to worry about things you can't change. 

[Fenring]

The bottom line is this: part of their support (in this case for Trump) is based on misinformation.  When presented with contradicting facts, they reject the facts and increase their support.  This is in direct contradiction to what we would expect as a rational response.

Who is this "we"? Do you think people are, or ought to be, walking calculators? I feel like your response comes from a very different place than what I'm saying, and also presupposes that people should live and think in a way that I don't think they themselves would agree with if you put it to them as a proposition. It seems more like you're asserting your values (or at least values that sound good to you on paper) as a given and assuming that only those values are relevant in assessing the consistency of human behavior. Or put another way, you're assuming by definition that Trump supporters are wrong and then trying to figure out how they're wrong. How do you know they're wrong? Because they disagree with you! And since you believe in correct facts it follows from this that their belief can only be justified by having incorrect facts. Do you see where this is going? It goes back to the old stereotype of liberals where they assert that if you disagree with them you're either lying, misinformed, or stupid. You're falling right into this by being uninterested in examining why someone might take a position far from your own.

[D.W.]

Don't give me too much credit.  I "know" they are wrong as well.  I just like to understand how they tick. 

[AI Wessex]

We see very often here that Obama supporters, for instance, are reluctant to criticize anything at all that he ever says or does. I recognize that they're in the position of having to defend him on a regular basis against partisan criticism, but the "if I give in on this point it will seem like I'm abetting the other side" issue probably impedes the ability to like Obama for instance but to strongly criticize him on certain particulars. The tendency is rather to embrace a leader wholesale and to find reasons to support things he says even if a particular point is erroneous.

You say several supporters are "reluctant to criticize anything at all that he ever says or does".  Would you care to identify a single "Obama supporter" to whom that characterization applies?  If not, it's a good example of the kind of blanket overreach by generalization that people who defend Obama (or others) are subject to here.

[Fenring]

We see very often here that Obama supporters, for instance, are reluctant to criticize anything at all that he ever says or does. I recognize that they're in the position of having to defend him on a regular basis against partisan criticism, but the "if I give in on this point it will seem like I'm abetting the other side" issue probably impedes the ability to like Obama for instance but to strongly criticize him on certain particulars. The tendency is rather to embrace a leader wholesale and to find reasons to support things he says even if a particular point is erroneous.

You say several supporters are "reluctant to criticize anything at all that he ever says or does".  Would you care to identify a single "Obama supporter" to whom that characterization applies?  If not, it's a good example of the kind of blanket overreach by generalization that people who defend Obama (or others) are subject to here.

Is this micro-digression relevant to my greater point, which is that this is how many people in today's political climate think and act? If you think they do then what is the value of contesting this minor point in particular, and if you think they don't then why not just say so?

In particular to your question you must surely know that it's untenable to ask me to demonstrate a negative since I'd have to literally post every message ever on Ornery about Obama and demonstrate the lack of criticism of him. I'll leave it to whomever is reading to either agree or disagree with my assessment and leave it at that. In my experience here, which is limited compared to many of you, the only times an Obama supporter tends to voice disagreement with him is when they offer a begrudging admission about something where they've been accused of being partisan, and even then it tends to come with a qualification such as "I disagree with the particulars of his policy but agree with his reasoning." That's all well and good, but when all criticisms of Obama originate with people already predisposed to be against him it paints a fairly clear picture. It either means that Obama is never wrong, or what when he is his supporters only see fit to address the wrongness when the issue is forced by the other side. And obviously this principle applies in reverse to the other side as well. I'll note again that in today's climate this is understandable, even though it doesn't sound pretty to admit.

[scifibum]

Fenring, that's because most of the threads that even touch on Obama's policies are about BENGHAAAAZI or the IRS scandal or how OMGAWFUL Obamacare is.  The starting point isn't "How do you feel about Obama?"

All the same, most of the (relatively active) liberal leaning members of this site have criticized Obama on this forum.

[Seriati]

Their non-expert "opinion" on whether Trump supporters are misinformed seems to based on be the Washington Post article describing how negative attacks made support for him stronger.  There wasn't any evidence that there was any misinformation played a material role in that process in that report, and in fact it proffered other plausible explanations.

The latter part of the article made clear that the group was exposed to facts that contradicted Trump, and it only made them more resolute in their support.

It did not make that clear.  I understand your confusion, but a partisan attribution of something they believe is similar to a scientific study has not rigor or demonstrated validity.  Hence, I asked specifically about what misinformation you think they had.  Keep in mind though, that the article was about a 3 hour negative campaign techniques session, it's hopelessly confounded for the purpose of determining if a particular piece of misinformation is correctable with Trump voters, and absolutely dissimilar from the study itself.  What it actually shows is that if you spend 3 hours making weak negative arguments of the type that have been effective against generally unlikable politicians historically, a media personality running for office with a long history of successfully translating negative assertions into gruff likability will come out looking better, and then if you include in misinformation that particular group of people is not terribly likely to suddenly shift their entire view.  Like, wow.

It does not show, what you seem to want it to show - that Trump supporters are generally misinformed, when compared to supporters of other candidates.  It doesn't even come close.

Luntz moved on to questions about Trump’s claim that “thousands of Muslims” had “cheered the collapse of the World Trade Center.” Almost no one doubted Trump; more than a few people wondered why this was controversial. The youngest member of the group wondered why he never saw Muslims in the streets protesting terrorism. Kelly said that there was fresh audio evidence of Muslims celebrating the San Bernardino shooting, though he could not immediately recall the source...

Nothing seemed to budge the Trump voters.

I read the article, negative campaign statements, many of which were untrue or strained didn't budge them.  But it was clear that he didn't get a lot of support on his bar Muslims idea.  With people expressing disagreement with him.  The thousands cheered one, is a good example for you, I think he made it up myself, or is misattributing something that occurred elsewhere to the US. 

Almost all of them agreed that Clinton had committed crimes.

Which shows they are informed, not misinformed.

Almost all agreed that the last Republican president had been wrong to invade Iraq in 2003.

Which shows they are more susceptible to propaganda than logic.

Finally, Luntz asked for a thought experiment — to imagine incontrovertible proof that Clinton would win if Trump split the vote. Only then did the group agree to vote Republican over Trump...

Which shows that notwithstanding the ability of propaganda to influence them, they still are rational.  How is that any different than the supporters of any other candidate?  Would it come out differently, with Hillary supporters if you could prove only Bernie could beat the Republican candidate?  I seriously doubt any amount of negative campaigning gets them to switch in significant numbers from Hillary to Bernie.

It is pretty clear that information that contradicted Trumps pronouncements was presented to the group, and it only made the group more resolute in their support of Trump.

The study is based on factually inaccurate beliefs, the 3 hour test session was not.  The fact that it included a few cases of misinformation, in hours of deliberate negative ads that themselves contained misinformation makes it useless for a scientific purpose.

Donald Trump says that President Obama wants to allow 250,000 Syrian refugees to come into the country,” Luntz said. “Who thinks that is mostly true?”

Nearly every hand shot up.

“Do you know that Obama has said he wants only 10,000 refugees?” Luntz asked.

“What’s in his heart?” asked one participant.

“He’d let as many in as possible,” insisted another.

“It happens again and again,” said Jeff Scrima, 38, who moved to the D.C. area after serving as mayor of Waukesha, Wis. “The State Department says one thing, Obama says something else, and they change the policy to match him.”

And what exactly about this is illogical?  The President has a direct history of getting a law passed with a set of limitations and promises and then "interpreting" it to ignore the limitations and promises.  It's the most defining characteristic of his executive authority.

You seem awfully willing to dismiss legitimate disagreements based on logical interpretations of the otherside's lies, just because they let you deride people who disagree with you.

They believe Trump's lies when presented with the facts, and support him more afterward.  This is pretty consistent with the earlier study cited.

You didn't show they believed lies, you didn't show they started with misinformation and were presented with verifiably true contrary information (opinions are not facts), nor did you show anything but a hopeless confounded text of negative campaign commericals for "evidence."  Or in other words, you failed to even remotely apply the limited rigor the original study used.

[Wayward Son]

Who is this "we"?

In this case, "we" refers to Western Civilization--people who believe our beliefs and reasoning should primarily be based on facts, not rumors, feelings and fantasy.  It is precisely what Conservatives have criticized Liberals for not being.

It seems more like you're asserting your values (or at least values that sound good to you on paper) as a given and assuming that only those values are relevant in assessing the consistency of human behavior. Or put another way, you're assuming by definition that Trump supporters are wrong and then trying to figure out how they're wrong. How do you know they're wrong? Because they disagree with you! And since you believe in correct facts it follows from this that their belief can only be justified by having incorrect facts.

And here you are completely wrong.  I don't assert that they believe in incorrect facts because they are wrong.  I assert they believe in incorrect facts because they believe in incorrect facts!

Let me quote from the quotes of the article I quoted:

“Donald Trump says that President Obama wants to allow 250,000 Syrian refugees to come into the country,” Luntz said. “Who thinks that is mostly true?”

Nearly every hand shot up.

There is no conceivable dispute about how many Syrian refugees Obama has currently proposed to allow in this country.  To say that he wants more than he has asked for is, at best, making a guess.

So what happens when they are told the real number?

“Do you know that Obama has said he wants only 10,000 refugees?” Luntz asked.

“What’s in his heart?” asked one participant.

“He’d let as many in as possible,” insisted another.

“It happens again and again,” said Jeff Scrima, 38, who moved to the D.C. area after serving as mayor of Waukesha, Wis. “The State Department says one thing, Obama says something else, and they change the policy to match him.”

"What's in his heart."  Mind-reading.  One could just as well say Obama "really" wants 4 million refugees, or only 5.  They have just as much basis in fact as 250,000.

Yet everyone believed the 250,000 number.  And when corrected, they came up with lame-ass excuses for why some arbitrary number is really true.

Or how about:

Luntz moved on to questions about Trump’s claim that “thousands of Muslims” had “cheered the collapse of the World Trade Center.” Almost no one doubted Trump; more than a few people wondered why this was controversial.

No one has been able to show "thousands of Muslims" cheering in the streets of New Jersey, as Trump contends he remembers.  This is simply false.  But almost no one in that group doubted it.  And, more importantly, almost no one modified their position when told it wasn't true.

That's what I'm talking about.  This has nothing to do with my values, or Trump's political position, or even his bone-headed idea of building a wall with Mexico and having Mexico pay for it.  (You did see an engineer's analysis of how practical that would be, right?)  I'm talking about believing Obama took his oath on a copy of the Koran, and when told it isn't true, become more certain it is true.  About denying facts when they are presented to you.

If someone can't or won't modify what he believes is true when the facts are presented that show they are not, then there simply is no way to modify that belief.  And when a significant portion of the nation become like that, then we are all in big trouble.

[D.W.]

And when a significant portion of the nation become like that, then we are all in big trouble.

Only if you choose to attempt to reason with them instead of manipulate them.

You don't sit down at a table with sheep and pile up text books and explain to them why it's a good idea to agree with your goals and convince them they should aid you in achieving them.

You write off the group then try to make sure children aren't raised as more sheep or you use the same "dirty tricks" you bemoan in your opponents.

P.S. if you don't think liberals raise their own sheep you are suffering from your own blind spots.  When dealing with those in my own social circles, I pour more attention into the sheep stumbling in my direction than trying to herd those going against the tide.  I try to believe it's possible to wake someone up when they claim to want what you want.  Doing so when they claim to want the opposite of what I want seems impossible.

[Seriati]

“Donald Trump says that President Obama wants to allow 250,000 Syrian refugees to come into the country,” Luntz said. “Who thinks that is mostly true?”

Nearly every hand shot up.

There is no conceivable dispute about how many Syrian refugees Obama has currently proposed to allow in this country.  To say that he wants more than he has asked for is, at best, making a guess.

There is no dispute about the proposed amount, true, but the question was about what the President wants.  Can you explain rationally, why the President does not "want" 250,000 refugees, what difference under his logic is there that would say 10,000 is good but 250,000 is clearly not?

Honestly, do you really believe President Obama would assert that we should not let 250,000 refugees in?

So what happens when they are told the real number?

They weren't told the "real" number of what the President wants.  They were told the proposed number in place today, and they gave rationale responses that highlight that difference, which are exactly what you cited here:

“What’s in his heart?” asked one participant.

“He’d let as many in as possible,” insisted another.

“It happens again and again,” said Jeff Scrima, 38, who moved to the D.C. area after serving as mayor of Waukesha, Wis. “The State Department says one thing, Obama says something else, and they change the policy to match him.”

“Do you know that Obama has said he wants only 10,000 refugees?” Luntz asked.

He's only asking for 10k, where did he say he only wants 10k?

"What's in his heart."  Mind-reading.  One could just as well say Obama "really" wants 4 million refugees, or only 5.  They have just as much basis in fact as 250,000.

Since they were asked to comment on a claim about what he wants, you're absolutely correct, they have just as much basis to believe 4-5 million - if someone actually made that claim.

Yet everyone believed the 250,000 number.  And when corrected, they came up with lame-ass excuses for why some arbitrary number is really true.

Your rigor on this analysis is incredibly weak, its not even a demonstrably false or true statement, that directly violates the principles behind the study you're using where the contrary facts have to be demonstrably true.  When you ask questions in ways that lead to different opinions, you can't claim there are factually correct answers.

If someone can't or won't modify what he believes is true when the facts are presented that show they are not, then there simply is no way to modify that belief.  And when a significant portion of the nation become like that, then we are all in big trouble.

So demonstrate the principal, since you've been shown that your interpretation of these facts is incorrect, adjust your view.

[AI Wessex]

There is no dispute about the proposed amount, true, but the question was about what the President wants.

and

He's only asking for 10k, where did he say he only wants 10k?

It's utterly nonsensical to claim that "wants" is different from "asking for" in this context.  This is a perfect example of bending over backwards to make Obama seem like he's being dishonest and somehow acting nefariously.  As Wayward pointed out elsewhere, this is why people have to defend him, not because we like everything he does, but because the fevered attempts to paint him in an unfavorable light often seems to have no honest intent.

[scifibum]

"Honestly, do you really believe President Obama would assert that we should not let 250,000 refugees in?"

Wow, Seriati, so you are now defending the made up claim because it can't be disproven. 

I get it, you really hate smug liberals.  But you're being silly in response.

[Fenring]

Who is this "we"?

In this case, "we" refers to Western Civilization--people who believe our beliefs and reasoning should primarily be based on facts, not rumors, feelings and fantasy.  It is precisely what Conservatives have criticized Liberals for not being.

You have created a false dilemma between "facts" and "rumors, feelings and fantasy." By lumping feelings into the latter group you implicitly impugn the idea that people should trust their feelings, and there are a massive amount of people who think that humans derive as much (if not more) useful information from their feelings and instinct than from intellectual assessment of data. In fact, I'm happy you refer to "we" as Western Civilization because the bias (which Nietzsche calls the sickness of Socrates) of putting rational intellectual thinking on a pedestal above all else is a distinctly Western bias at present and is frankly looked at with ridicule by others who don't share that view. I should mention that in my view this is a true assertion about Western thought as a broad statement but that it also represents a distinct weakness in thinking and understanding. So whoever this "we" is that you're referring to I'm not a part of "them" and neither are a lot of intelligent people. Actually I'm willing to bet you aren't really one of "them" either if it was really put to the test, but I recognize that you intellectually subscribe to the idea of basing your decisions on facts. But I doubt very much you literally only base decisions on rational analysis of facts; that's probably not even remotely true of anyone, nor should it be.

And here you are completely wrong.  I don't assert that they believe in incorrect facts because they are wrong.  I assert they believe in incorrect facts because they believe in incorrect facts!

Seriati dealt with this issue well enough that I'll just leave it, with the proviso that while he's intent on showing that Trump's supporters may not have actually been misinformed, my main point is that you absolutely cannot get from showing they're misinforced to showing that they support him because of this. And this last connection (which cannot logically be made) is actually the basis for your entire argument. Your thesis is basically that Trump has support because he tells people lies, and then the lies serve to reinforce that support when challenged. It's just another way of saying "I don't think Trump should have supporters, since only someone misinformed would accept his lies."

[Wayward Son]

There is no dispute about the proposed amount, true, but the question was about what the President wants.  Can you explain rationally, why the President does not "want" 250,000 refugees, what difference under his logic is there that would say 10,000 is good but 250,000 is clearly not?

Honestly, do you really believe President Obama would assert that we should not let 250,000 refugees in?

I think this is a bit of a semantic game, Seriati.  Admittedly, the word "wants" has more to do with the Presidents desires and intentions.  But no one has information of what Obama's ideal number is, least of all Donald Trump.  The only number we know is the actual proposed number.

Since they were asked to comment on a claim about what he wants, you're absolutely correct, they have just as much basis to believe 4-5 million - if someone actually made that claim.

Why do they have to wait until someone makes that claim??  The 250,000 number is made up, as you admit.  Why don't some believe it is 1 million, and others 25,000?  Why did they all agree on the 250,000?

I'll tell you why.  Because they don't care about the number.  They just believe that Obama wants to allow a whole lot of Muslim refugees into the country for political purposes, mostly to undermine our Conservative values.  Thus, 250,000 is a reasonable number, much more reasonable than a piddly 10,000, and thus much more believable.  So they swallow it, hook, line and sinker.  And dispute the only number we know for sure because it doesn't fit in well with their narrative.

And that's what worries me.  When the narratives overrides the facts.  Trump is riding high on selling the narratives, and he knows the facts can be damned.  And he knows his supporters simply don't care.

By lumping feelings into the latter group you implicitly impugn the idea that people should trust their feelings, and there are a massive amount of people who think that humans derive as much (if not more) useful information from their feelings and instinct than from intellectual assessment of data. In fact, I'm happy you refer to "we" as Western Civilization because the bias (which Nietzsche calls the sickness of Socrates) of putting rational intellectual thinking on a pedestal above all else is a distinctly Western bias at present and is frankly looked at with ridicule by others who don't share that view. I should mention that in my view this is a true assertion about Western thought as a broad statement but that it also represents a distinct weakness in thinking and understanding. So whoever this "we" is that you're referring to I'm not a part of "them" and neither are a lot of intelligent people. Actually I'm willing to bet you aren't really one of "them" either if it was really put to the test, but I recognize that you intellectually subscribe to the idea of basing your decisions on facts. But I doubt very much you literally only base decisions on rational analysis of facts; that's probably not even remotely true of anyone, nor should it be.

True, feelings and ideals and many other factors should come into play when deciding what to do and who to support.  But when actual facts--facts that are pertinent to the creation of these feelings and ideals--are shown to be inaccurate, if not outright false (like Trump's contention that “thousands of Muslims” had “cheered the collapse of the World Trade Center," a fact that Seriati did not address), then one should at least acknowledge the inaccuracy and consider how to modify your feelings and attitudes.  Or at least go back and check your source, to verify that you are not wrong.  But to simply hunker down, deny the information and become even more entrenched in your views, feelings and attitudes, that's what is worrisome.  That way lies madness.

Seriati dealt with this issue well enough that I'll just leave it, with the proviso that while he's intent on showing that Trump's supporters may not have actually been misinformed, my main point is that you absolutely cannot get from showing they're misinforced to showing that they support him because of this. And this last connection (which cannot logically be made) is actually the basis for your entire argument. Your thesis is basically that Trump has support because he tells people lies, and then the lies serve to reinforce that support when challenged. It's just another way of saying "I don't think Trump should have supporters, since only someone misinformed would accept his lies."

That's not quite my thesis.  It's more of, if you show that Trump has lied, you should be less likely to support him, not more.  Don't we want citizens and voters who modify their views when they are shown facts that contradict their views and beliefs, not ones who become more firm in their beliefs?  I mean, that means the best way to make people believe in a lie to show them again and again that it is a lie! 

That would prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. 

[AI Wessex]

I read an analysis yesterday that said that people who are ignorant about a subject often still have opinions about the topic.  Their ignorance derives either from a lack of information or misinformation.  Those who lack and then gather useful information are relatively amenable to change their opinions when enlightened, but those whose opinions are based on misinformation are much less likely to acknowledge their error and change their view.  The article was about people who support Trump and why his base seems immune to hearing that he is wrong on so many things.  My view is that it's a badge of honor to believe in him; truth and factual correctness are not relevant to their affinity towards him.

[Seriati]

"Honestly, do you really believe President Obama would assert that we should not let 250,000 refugees in?"

Wow, Seriati, so you are now defending the made up claim because it can't be disproven. 

I get it, you really hate smug liberals.  But you're being silly in response.

With apologies scifibum, I think you misunderstand what I'm defending.  The point of the study referenced was that misinformed people won't change their views even when presented with verifiable  proof of their error.  What you saw on that claim was proof that they didn't trust the President's stated goal, not that they were misinformed about it.  It's not just a quibble.

[Seriati]

It's utterly nonsensical to claim that "wants" is different from "asking for" in this context.  This is a perfect example of bending over backwards to make Obama seem like he's being dishonest and somehow acting nefariously.

You do understand that we're not arguing the substance of the claim, and it has nothing to do with President Obama?  Only, whether Trump's support comes from misinformation.

As Wayward pointed out elsewhere, this is why people have to defend him, not because we like everything he does, but because the fevered attempts to paint him in an unfavorable light often seems to have no honest intent.

You should take a look at the study yourself and think long and hard about why you feel the need to defend him even when he's demonstrable wrong or acting inconsistent with your own goals.

[Seriati]

I think this is a bit of a semantic game, Seriati.  Admittedly, the word "wants" has more to do with the Presidents desires and intentions.  But no one has information of what Obama's ideal number is, least of all Donald Trump.  The only number we know is the actual proposed number.

I agree, but that doesn't help your claim.  You have to have a verifiable fact contradicting a wrongly believed fact.  Not a difference of opinion that is legitimate to make the claim under the study.

There's nothing illogical about people who believe the President is a dishonest liar believing that his actual goals are different than his stated goals.  Or do you think it was irrational to know in 2008 that President Obama really wasn't against gay marriage?  Was it "misinformation" to believe that?

Why do they have to wait until someone makes that claim??  The 250,000 number is made up, as you admit.  Why don't some believe it is 1 million, and others 25,000?  Why did they all agree on the 250,000?

I'll tell you why.  Because they don't care about the number.

That's correct they don't care about the number.  That, however, has nothing to do with being misinformed.

They just believe that Obama wants to allow a whole lot of Muslim refugees into the country for political purposes, mostly to undermine our Conservative values.  Thus, 250,000 is a reasonable number, much more reasonable than a piddly 10,000, and thus much more believable.  So they swallow it, hook, line and sinker.  And dispute the only number we know for sure because it doesn't fit in well with their narrative.

Now you're making things up.  The article did not show they "swallowed" the number, nor did they show a dispute of the 10k number.  They said they don't believe the President is telling the truth.  Not rocket science here.

And that's what worries me.  When the narratives overrides the facts.

Then quit participating in it.  You started a whole thread to sell the narrative that Trump voters only support him because they are misinformed, and have utterly failed to show that is the case with facts.

True, feelings and ideals and many other factors should come into play when deciding what to do and who to support.  But when actual facts--facts that are pertinent to the creation of these feelings and ideals--are shown to be inaccurate, if not outright false (like Trump's contention that “thousands of Muslims” had “cheered the collapse of the World Trade Center," a fact that Seriati did not address)

I did actually address it, you may want to look again.

That's not quite my thesis.  It's more of, if you show that Trump has lied, you should be less likely to support him, not more.

I am less likely to support him because of his lies and misstatements, that doesn't mean that others are not willing to throw their support to him in spite of it.  It is sometimes refreshing to hear him, even if its cringe worthy, when you putting him next to Cruz's always scripted responses.  That said, how illogical is it to demand less support for a liar when Hillary Clinton is almost certainly going to be the Democratic candidate?

Don't we want citizens and voters who modify their views when they are shown facts that contradict their views and beliefs, not ones who become more firm in their beliefs?

Of course, so show them some actual facts that contradict their views and lets see what happens.  Even then though, its absurd to expect them to jump to a less suitable candidate (in their minds) just because the "best" one has warts.

[scifibum]

"Honestly, do you really believe President Obama would assert that we should not let 250,000 refugees in?"

Wow, Seriati, so you are now defending the made up claim because it can't be disproven. 

I get it, you really hate smug liberals.  But you're being silly in response.

With apologies scifibum, I think you misunderstand what I'm defending.  The point of the study referenced was that misinformed people won't change their views even when presented with verifiable  proof of their error.  What you saw on that claim was proof that they didn't trust the President's stated goal, not that they were misinformed about it.  It's not just a quibble.

250,000 is misinformation, because it's made up.  It has no basis in fact. 

Don't forget that these are the same people who think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, is secretly a Muslim, and was sworn in on the Koran.  Don't argue that they aren't misinformed.

I'd probably agree that this specific misinformation has nothing to do with supporting Trump.  They likely support Trump because of the misinformation that Trump is a brilliant and successful businessman, and that government is like business.

[Seriati]

250,000 is misinformation, because it's made up.  It has no basis in fact.

250,000 is a number.  The statement that President Obama wants to let in 250,000 refugees, is an opinion and not necessarily false.  The statement that President Obama is trying to force the country to accept 250,000 refugees, is a lie and misinformation if believed.  You can't just ignore this kind of distinction when claiming misinformation.

Don't forget that these are the same people who think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii,

Not provable one way or the other by anyone other than those who were present at his birth.  But, also not reasonable to claim he was born outside of Hawaii, as that's unsupported.

is secretly a Muslim,

Isn't this actually true under certain interpretations based on his father's religion?  Doesn't matter though, I catch your point that there's no reason to believe the President is of any religion other than the one he claims (of course he is known to lie for convenience).

and was sworn in on the Koran.

This one actually should be provable one way or the other.  I'll assume you are correct about it cause if that were true I expect we'd all have heard about it.

Don't argue that they aren't misinformed.

I argued that this article's proof was inadequate.  Did you do some independent polling to establish that these people held the "misinformation" you just cited to?  Can you provide the links?   Or are you, also, just making up claims about the situation?

I'd probably agree that this specific misinformation has nothing to do with supporting Trump.  They likely support Trump because of the misinformation that Trump is a brilliant and successful businessman, and that government is like business.

Which is opinion not misinformation.

I cringe for what science education is coming to.

[scifibum]

Seriati, I honestly think it's doing your party more harm than good to defend and rationalize the craziness it harbors, and that's all you're doing.  I'll leave you to it.

[D.W.]

The issue scifibum is that "proof" like this does our party more harm than good.  Seraiti does correctly point out the sloppy wording used in the interview.  That defense may not render your conclusion incorrect but it does discredit the "proof" label effectively.  When your argument amounts to, "you hold positions even when presented with proof contradicting you" then you have decided to hold yourself to a higher standard.  You can't just be "right" you must be unassailable in your argument.

[AI Wessex]

In particular to your question you must surely know that it's untenable to ask me to demonstrate a negative since I'd have to literally post every message ever on Ornery about Obama and demonstrate the lack of criticism of him.

And yet you make a sweeping charge that you can't back up and basically blame me for challenging you to prove it.  Some current posters here who attack Obama will do anything to avoid having to admit they are wrong.  Am I accountable to back that statement up?  Or can I just say that whenever I feel like it...

[Fenring]

In particular to your question you must surely know that it's untenable to ask me to demonstrate a negative since I'd have to literally post every message ever on Ornery about Obama and demonstrate the lack of criticism of him.

And yet you make a sweeping charge that you can't back up and basically blame me for challenging you to prove it.  Some current posters here who attack Obama will do anything to avoid having to admit they are wrong.  Am I accountable to back that statement up?  Or can I just say that whenever I feel like it...

My statement was a personal observation, which, even if true in broad strokes could obviously be shown to be untrue in certain particular conversations. Pointing to a few outliers doesn't refute a general trend, and in any case if I think I see a trend and you challenge me to "prove it" the quantitative brute-force methods needed to do this would be outrageous. I think you're well within the confines of conversation like this to say you don't observe the same thing as me, or maybe to even ask if I can think of an example that demonstrates what I mean, but asking me to prove a trend of messages here over years is untenable unless I make a life mission out of it. Even what Greg did for the one Obamacare thread must have taken him a lot of time, and my task in this would be far greater. So no thank you, I'll just leave my observation as stated and I'll certainly note your disagreement with it. Perhaps in some future thread we can refer back to this conversation and see if one side or the other was being unfair - I'm totally cool with that.

I'll start by actually listing one point in your favor, which was the Hillary: Too Big a Risk thread about the email scandal. Several liberal posters were critical of her there and I took due note of it. She's not Obama and to be fair it's easier to pick on her for things, but still I think it's fair play to count it.

[Wayward Son]

There's nothing illogical about people who believe the President is a dishonest liar believing that his actual goals are different than his stated goals.  Or do you think it was irrational to know in 2008 that President Obama really wasn't against gay marriage?  Was it "misinformation" to believe that?

I think I see where you're coming from, Seriati, but it's still a bad place.   Yes, you could say that the number is arbitrary, and what they really mean is that Obama wants to flood the country with refugees.  But that opens up a whole new can of worms.

For instance, I could state Trump plans on deporting all Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews by the end of his first year if he becomes President.  If someone points out that he never stated such, I would simply point out that we already know he is a liar, and that in his heart he wants to.  Thus, Trump planning on deporting anyone who isn't a WASP by 2017 is simply an "opinion."

It has the same problem as misinformation: it is immune to modification by reality.

They just believe that Obama wants to allow a whole lot of Muslim refugees into the country for political purposes, mostly to undermine our Conservative values.  Thus, 250,000 is a reasonable number, much more reasonable than a piddly 10,000, and thus much more believable.  So they swallow it, hook, line and sinker.  And dispute the only number we know for sure because it doesn't fit in well with their narrative.

Now you're making things up.  The article did not show they "swallowed" the number, nor did they show a dispute of the 10k number.  They said they don't believe the President is telling the truth.  Not rocket science here.

What does that have to do with anything?  I'm just stating my opinion.  My statement has just as much legitimacy as those who believe that Obama wants to allow in 250,000 Muslims.  I'm not basing it on the article.  I'm telling you what these people actually believe in their hearts.

You started a whole thread to sell the narrative that Trump voters only support him because they are misinformed, and have utterly failed to show that is the case with facts.

A.  I did not start the whole thread.  B.  I am not saying that all Trump voters only support him because they are misinformed.  Some support him for other reasons.  But I suspect a large number are "misinformed"--which means that they believe things mainly because they want them to be true, not because there is sufficient evidence to support it.  (Such as the 250,000 number.)

That's not quite my thesis.  It's more of, if you show that Trump has lied, you should be less likely to support him, not more.

I am less likely to support him because of his lies and misstatements, that doesn't mean that others are not willing to throw their support to him in spite of it.  It is sometimes refreshing to hear him, even if its cringe worthy, when you putting him next to Cruz's always scripted responses.  That said, how illogical is it to demand less support for a liar when Hillary Clinton is almost certainly going to be the Democratic candidate?

You're still missing the point.  It isn't that this group had the same level of support before being shown facts that contradicted what they believed; they had more[/I] support after being shown facts that contradicted what they believed.  They became more likely to vote for him.

When I first heard about Hillary's e-mail, my heart fell, because it sounded like she may have really done something totally illegal.  I was less likely to support her at that point.  I will probably still support her (considering the bozos that the Republicans are fronting), but not as much as if she hadn't done it.  Now, if I had decided to support her even more, what would you make of that?

This group apparently wanted to support Trump more after hearing that the 250,000 number was made up, and Muslims didn't celebrate 911 in New Jersey, and all the other crap the man tells.  That is the point.  I wouldn't expect them to abandon him immediately, but I wouldn't expect them to embrace him more when they are shown facts that show he isn't always truthful.

True, feelings and ideals and many other factors should come into play when deciding what to do and who to support.  But when actual facts--facts that are pertinent to the creation of these feelings and ideals--are shown to be inaccurate, if not outright false (like Trump's contention that “thousands of Muslims” had “cheered the collapse of the World Trade Center," a fact that Seriati did not address)

I did actually address it, you may want to look again.

I couldn't find it, Seriati.   Perhaps you could point it out?

[Pete at Home]

We see very often here that Obama supporters, for instance, are reluctant to criticize anything at all that he ever says or does. I recognize that they're in the position of having to defend him on a regular basis against partisan criticism, but the "if I give in on this point it will seem like I'm abetting the other side" issue probably impedes the ability to like Obama for instance but to strongly criticize him on certain particulars. The tendency is rather to embrace a leader wholesale and to find reasons to support things he says even if a particular point is erroneous.

You say several supporters are "reluctant to criticize anything at all that he ever says or does".  Would you care to identify a single "Obama supporter" to whom that characterization applies?  If not, it's a good example of the kind of blanket overreach by generalization that people who defend Obama (or others) are subject to here.

Since you ask, you would be exhibit A, your Wessexness.

[AI Wessex]

I assume you did some careful rereading to ascertain my one-sidedness, but somehow failed to notice places where I did exactly what you say I didn't.  The problem for you is that I don't tear into him with sexually charged metaphors, didn't attack Holder with the blind vehemence you demonstrated, and time after time pointed out when attacks made on him were baseless or wholly partisan attempts to destroy his effectiveness.  For these failings you often pointed out that I was being obtuse.

To refresh you on some topics, I think his approach to the Syrian rebellion is lacking in clarity (though the situation is far from clear), that he was too conciliatory on the sequester, pulled back too easily on moving aggressively toward the single payer health care system, and has not been as successful in many negotiations with Congress as he might have been. 

OTOH (and this I think is what bothers you and perhaps Fenring), I think he's done a phenomenal job with the economy and most of his initiatives overall.  Considering the decrepit state of the economy when he took office in 2009 and how many times the GOP has tried to demonize or thwart him and his efforts, he will be remembered as one of the more accomplished Presidents in the past 60 years.

[Fenring]

For instance, I could state Trump plans on deporting all Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews by the end of his first year if he becomes President.  If someone points out that he never stated such, I would simply point out that we already know he is a liar, and that in his heart he wants to.  Thus, Trump planning on deporting anyone who isn't a WASP by 2017 is simply an "opinion."

It has the same problem as misinformation: it is immune to modification by reality.

What I think you're failing to see here is that if this was your belief - namely that regardless of what Trump says this is what you think he really believes - and I came along and told you that because he never said this and could 'prove' it to you that you were misinformed, it would be *me* who is the partisan trying to twist the situation. It's entirely reasonable for you to think Trump is a liar and to attribute to him things he may not say but you think are accurate about his real beliefs. You could be wrong, of course, but I'd be in a sense more wrong to try to definitively tell you 'the truth' in order to show that Trump opposers are misinformed.

[DJQuag]

How many refugees and asylum seekers do you all think the US is going to have to allow in before they can start having parties like they had in Cologne on New Years Eve?

[Pete at Home]

Setting aside your misrepresentation of our past exchanges ...

" To refresh you on some topics, I think his approach to the Syrian rebellion is lacking in clarity (though the situation is far from clear)"

That's not a criticism. A war policy doesn't need to be clear.  It only has to actually exist. 

" that he was too conciliatory on the sequester, pulled back too easily on moving aggressively toward the single payer health care system, and has not been as successful in many negotiations with Congress as he might have been."

Those are just backhanded compliments.  As if Obama's only flaw is that he sometimes fails to act with the confidence of someone who is always right.  !

"OTOH (and this I think is what bothers you and perhaps Fenring), I think he's done a phenomenal job with the economy and most of his initiatives overall."

No, that's not what bothers me, silly boy.  What bothers me is that while you say most, you are incapable of articulating any single error to Obama alone other than being too conciliatory with those awful people that don't worship him.

"he will be remembered as one of the more accomplished Presidents in the past 60 years."

With the possible exception of Lincoln, every president that has been so considered was a MARKETING accomplishment. 

One might ask, "considered" by *whom*?  The some people will always consider him so regardless of actual facts, says nothing of his actual accomplishments. 

[Pete at Home]

How many refugees and asylum seekers do you all think the US is going to have to allow in before they can start having parties like they had in Cologne on New Years Eve?

Amazing how that story was suppressed

From BBC: "authorities say they have identified 18 asylum-seekers among 31 suspects linked to crimes committed in Cologne on New Year's Eve.
The suspects include nine Algerians, eight Moroccans, four Syrians, five Iranians, two Germans and one each from Iraq, Serbia and the US."

[NobleHunter]

...which means that they believe things mainly because they want them to be true...

Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid.

[Seriati]

It has the same problem as misinformation: it is immune to modification by reality.

I think Fenring covered this pretty well, but I'd like to point out that opinions are not generally immune to modification by reality, what they are is generally not disprovable by the facts actually available.  There's nothing out there that is factual that demonstrates that Trump doesn't want to deport everyone, or that President Obama doesn't want to let every refuge in.  Nor more than in the wake of Katrina, you could disprove the insidious opinion that Republicans wanted black people to die, or during the Obamacare debate that they wanted, how was it phrased, old people and the poor to die because they opposed the plan.  Just like its not possible to disprove that Democratic policies are designed to make more poor people to ensure they have more voters.

Whether or not you believe anything like that is tied into how you understand the world and consequence and how much you trust or don't trust particular people.  You could have PERFECT information (publically available information not internal motivations) and still hold any or all of those beliefs because of how you interpret the actions and consequences that occur in reality.

What does that have to do with anything?  I'm just stating my opinion.  My statement has just as much legitimacy as those who believe that Obama wants to allow in 250,000 Muslims.  I'm not basing it on the article.  I'm telling you what these people actually believe in their hearts.

Actually you're wrong, you were stating their opinion, not yours.  And you're acting out the exact effect you're criticizing them for when you keep sticking to it after being shown the factual flaws in apply the study to the session cited.

You're still missing the point.  It isn't that this group had the same level of support before being shown facts that contradicted what they believed; they had more[/I] support after being shown facts that contradicted what they believed.  They became more likely to vote for him.

I'm not the missing the point, I refuted your point.  They were shown a negative marketing campaign, much of which was objectively not true.  And the end result was unlike a political figure, a media figure comes out of that with more support.  It stands for a completely different point than what you want to glean from it.  You're best efforts to show objective contrary facts have been pretty much refuted.

To actually apply the study's premise you have to believe that the manipulative negative ads presented objective factual truth, which you've come no where close to showing.

When I first heard about Hillary's e-mail, my heart fell, because it sounded like she may have really done something totally illegal.  I was less likely to support her at that point.  I will probably still support her (considering the bozos that the Republicans are fronting), but not as much as if she hadn't done it.  Now, if I had decided to support her even more, what would you make of that?

You should go back and read the very long Benghazi thread.  Now that it has been pretty clearly demonstrated that the administration was selling a lie, and take a look at all the arguments that were made as each level of contrary proof to the thesis that they weren't lieing were made.  My view with Hillary is that to support her at this point you either have to not care that she tells self serving lies and most likely has violated the law, or you have to believe at some level that "everyone does it" and what's unique is that she's being called out for it - ie buy into the unique persecution angle.

This group apparently wanted to support Trump more after hearing that the 250,000 number was made up, and Muslims didn't celebrate 911 in New Jersey, and all the other crap the man tells.  That is the point.  I wouldn't expect them to abandon him immediately, but I wouldn't expect them to embrace him more when they are shown facts that show he isn't always truthful.

I don't why you keep asserting things about the 250k number, I consider your argument on that refuted, it was clear from their comments that it wasn't been taken as truth of anything other than the President's aspiration.  I do agree with you that New Jersey celebration is almost certainly a mistake or fabrication that he's refused to back away from, that seems totally consistent with his historical strategy.  He just keeps going in the face of criticism no matter what and it eventually (rather quickly in his case) turns the corner for him.  It's a different variety, but no less effective, of what Hillary does when she ignores things until she can dismiss them as "old news".  They both have decided that addressing these things or admitting any kind of fault has far worse political consequences than refusing to do so.  And they are both correct.

I did actually address it, you may want to look again.

I couldn't find it, Seriati.   Perhaps you could point it out?

The thousands cheered one, is a good example for you, I think he made it up myself, or is misattributing something that occurred elsewhere to the US.

[AI Wessex]

Palin has endorsed Trump.  The speculation is that she is maneuvering for a Cabinet position.  Perhaps she can ask for Secretary of Defense, as Herman Cain did in 2012.

Media and others have assessed what this endorsement means:

NY Daily News front page, priceless.

Her words:

Yeah, our leader, a little bit different. He's a multibillionaire, not that there's anything wrong with that. But it's amazing. He is not elitist at all. Oh, I just hope you all get to know him more and more as a person and a family man, what he's been able to accomplish with, it's kind of this quiet generosity.

Even the Donald looks a little confused.

Nobody is more of an expert on family than Sarah:

On Monday at around 10 p.m. local time, police in Wasilla, Alaska, responded to a disturbance at Sarah Palin’s home, where Track, 26, an Iraq combat team veteran, lives with his parents. According to a police affidavit posted by KTVA Alaska, a woman, later identified as Track’s girlfriend Jordan Loewe, called 911 to say Track had punched her in the face and had a firearm. Track also called 911, saying Loewe was drunk. When an officer arrived on the scene, he found Track outside, talking on the phone.

And the coup de grace:

Rick Tyler, the spokesperson for Ted Cruz's presidential campaign, warned Sarah Palin on Tuesday that she would be tarnishing her own reputation by endorsing Donald Trump.

Now, that's gotta hurt when Ted ("Nobody Likes Him") Cruz's minions say her vaunted reputation has been tarnished.

In related news on Trump, GOP strategist Rick Wilson:

I think that there is definitely still a very significant portion of the party that is a limited government conservatism based faction of the overall coalition. Now the screamers and the crazy people on the all-right as they call it, you know, who love Donald Trump, who have plenty of Hitler iconography in their Twitter icons and names...
 … who think Donald Trump is the greatest thing. Oh, it's something. But the fact of the matter is most of them are childless, single men who masturbate to Anime. They're not real political players. These are not people who matter in the overall course of humanity.

As a bonus, here's Robert Gates on the military ideas put forth by the GOP candidates:

Well, they -- First of all, they don't know what they're talking about. Carpet bombing would be completely useless. It's totally contrary to the American way of war. Total disregard for civilians. So I mean, part of the concern that I have with the campaign, particularly when it comes to national security, is that the solutions being offered are so simplistic and so at odds with the reality of the rest of the world, with the way the world really works.

[Pete at Home]

Gates is right. It's only OK to violate such humanitarian norms when the president is a democrat and the targets Christians who don't like being raped by Muslims.  Hence no outrage about cluster- bombing Serb and Gypsy kids.