Data does not lie. Republicans deliver and believe more BS than the Democrats

Well, our argument about the Founders is irrelevant to the discussion. What the Founders did/did not do and what they believed/did not believe is hardly useful in a discussion of whether today's politicians on one side of the fence believe more BS than the other side.

And I've already shown how your "study" in the OP is flawed and therefore is not a valid basis from which to make your claim. Of course, you can still "use" it if you wish. That is your prerogative. Not a sound idea. But still your prerogative. Beyond that all that we can do is do a tit for tat showing the idiocy that both sides have committed trying to "one up" each other in the stupid crap they believe. Which is, quite frankly, endless and not worth my time.

Edit: Ironically if you do continue to use a study that has been shown to be flawed...it is actually showing that you are the one believing more BS than the side you're railing against. Just a thought...

 

Everyone who supports a Big Government model is on the Fascist end of the spectrum.

““Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” Benito Mussolini’s formulation remains one of the most enduring definitions of modern totalitarianism. Italy’s Fascist regime was the first to declare itself totalitarian, and it envisioned a radically new social order engineered by the state. But to what extent did all facets of Italian life genuinely reside “within the state”? What was the scope of Fascism’s totalitarian project, as well as its limits? How did Italians variously negotiate, resist, and exploit the dictates of Mussolini’s regime?

Drawing on the frameworks of Alltagsgeschichte (the history of everyday life), Arthurs, Ferris and their collaborators propose new answers to these persistent questions. Their analytical sites include social encounters, relationships, and work; gestures, clothing, and comportment; language, emotion, and memory. What people wore and ate, how they greeted one another, how they navigated and negotiated the demands of daily life – these choices have much to tell us about the “unofficial relations” of power under a repressive and interventionist regime.”
Everything Within the State, Nothing Against the State, Nothing Outside the State: Toward the History of Everyday Life in Fascist Italy, Joshua Arthurs, Kate Ferris, Nov 03, 2015 / 18:00 – 19:30 / Villa La Pietra
https://lapietra.nyu.edu/event/ever...he-history-of-everyday-life-in-fascist-italy/

 

The Inconvenient Truth:

"Although it has been most often used to describe Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, the word “totalitarian”—totalitarismo—was first used in the context of Italian fascism. Invented by one of his critics, the term was adopted with enthusiasm by Benito Mussolini, and in one of his speeches he offered what is still the best definition of the term: “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
THE ATLANTIC, The Meaning of 'Totalitarian' Anne Applebaum talks to us like we're stupid. And it's awesome., By TA-NEHISI COATES, MARCH 26, 2014.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/the-meaning-of-totalitarian/359615/

Everyone who supports the Big Government model are obviously on the same end of the political spectrum. Think it through.

 

Let me put it simply for you. I have been on political debate boards for over 4 years and I have experienced the same type of thinking/responses that the article in the OP states. As such, the article in the OP may be flawed but it is correct. The article simply supports my own studies. In addition, I believe the article states that they used 10 or 20 people. My own experiences includes 100's of people.

The Republicans deliver and believe more BS than the Democrats is what I have determined to be a true statement.

 

You are taking my statement to the extreme and that is not where I am.

First of all, I have not mentioned anything about "house arrest". I believe the conditions that were put in place (wearing of masks, stay 6' feet away from others, etc.,) is what is and was the correct thing to do. There had/has to be some protections instituted to protect others from a highly infective infection. No one has the right to put others at risk of their lives for their own beliefs and desires. Or it is that you believe that it is okay for that to happen?

 

Here is history and reality:

"Between his assumption of power in 1933 and the Soviet-Nazi Pact of 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union were, or pretended to be, on the worst of possible terms. They assailed each other with abusive material stressing the ideological incompatibility of Communism and National Socialism, while studiously ignoring the obvious similarities between the two systems...." Ronald Hingley, "Joseph Stalin" p. 292.

"Birds of a feather"... Think it through.

 

So, it's really nothing more than confirmation bias for you. I've been on political debate boards far longer than you have. A little over 20 years. And I can tell you with absolute confidence that neither side is immune to believing BS. In equal amounts.

 

Of course I do. If a hiker gets lost and needs help, I would put my own life at risk to assist. I wouldn't call him selfish for going for a hike. I guess liberty is only for the brave.

 

THE ARTICLE didn't even provide facts, but you want me to use facts to disprove something that never existed?

Better yet, why don't you post the facts and sources of the supposed study that validates your OP? THat's how this proof thing works. You made the claim, from an article that provided no backup. Prove it.

 

I disagree. The amount of conspiracy theories that abound among the right (stolen election for example) is far more than the left believes or has.

The right also delivers ignorant statements such as Biden is the "cause" of inflation, the FBI is totally corrupt,

How can you compare giving a hiker a lift with getting sick and die from catching Covid from a person you met on the street?

Your post is totally ridiculous. We are talking about living and dying and not about going out of your way to help. No one has the right to put someone else at risk of dying just because they want to.

 

I'm not a "Trump Republican", that's you lashing out at a boogeyman you created. I'm a Libertarian and have never once voted for Trump. Your ASSumptions make you look silly.

You have done no such thing, because the article in itself doesn't even reference the "study" the methodology, the process, nor the margin for error. It's a blog post that presents no facts, pretending to be a scientific study. It aligned with your views, and so you posted it. Yet everybody else is the gullible ones? The ones most subjected to mis-information?

You don't realize how absolutely ironic this is?

LOL.

Ok. Prove it. Let's see the study.

 

I have been on political boards for over 4 years and have had discussions with a couple of hundred Republican Trump supporters and ALL of my personal experiences support the article in the OP. The Republican Trump supporters deliver and believe more BS than the Democrats. Lets start with the stolen election, the accusation that inflation is all Biden's fault, and that Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine would cure Covid..............just to name a couple of things.

 

Someone that thinks the Covid restrictions were wildly excessive and even harmful is not putting someone at risk "just because they want to.".

Yeah, @Hey Now appears to be stuck on old and obsolete definitions. Plenty of links showing that Fascism and Socialism/Communism meet at a point where the individual no longer matters: a totalitarian government will demand complete obedience or else.

 

2. The virus can spread in multiple ways.
According to the CDC, COVID-19 is spread in three main ways:

• Breathing in air when close to an infected person who is exhaling small droplets and particles that contain the virus
• Having these droplets and particles land on the eyes, nose, or mouth
• Touching the eyes, nose, and mouth with hands that have the virus on them

In addition, droplets can land on surfaces, and people may get the virus by touching those surfaces, although, according to the CDC, this is not thought to be the main way COVID-19 spreads.

Anyone who is infected with COVID-19 can spread it to other people, even if the infected person does not have symptoms, according to the CDC. In general, the more closely you interact with others and the longer that interaction, the higher the risk of COVID-19 spread. Indoor spaces are more risky than outdoor spaces.

By the way, you saying that the restrictions were "wildy excessive" is not the point. The point is that "no one has the right to cause potential death to someone else simply because of what they personally believe". As such, the government had to institute restrictions so the public could be protected. This whole conversation was about the right to do what a person wants to, even at the cost of someone's life". No one has that right.

 

Like I said, we can go tit for tat forever. But I'm not interested in such. You are of course free to disagree with me. Don't really care either way.

 

Totalitarianism turns its fans into chameleons -- they can turn from Red to Brown at the snap of a salute.

"It is revealing that in April 1933 socialist Free Trade Union leaders warmly acknowledged the embrace of the newly propose Volsgemeinschaft, and urged members to participate in the ceremonies the Nazis had planned. After a speech by Adolf Hitler, a collective singing of the national anthem, and a fireworks display, 1933's May Day came to an end shortly before midnight. The Next day the "Berliner Morgenpost," just three months earlier a newspaper of the Social Democrats, happily gushed: 'the biggest demonstration of all times."
Peter Fritzsche, "Germans into Nazis," Harvard University Press Cambridge Mass, 1998, P. 223, 225.

 

I feel the same way. In 4 years of being on these boards, I have yet to change anyone's mind on anything. I have stopped believing I can. What I do believe though, is that the truth needs to be made public and that is what I try to do. Whether you personally believe it or not, is not something I have any control over. I just say "for the record" of having said it. Nothing more and nothing less.

I do believe that each and everyone of us will end up reaping the benefits of our good decisions and suffering the consequences of our wrong decisions and it certainly is not me that is the judge or the deliverer or executioner of what is right and wrong.

I believe we will all be judged after we die for what we did in life.

 

Bolshevik Revolutionary Communists were labelled Fascists by "scholars". Were the "scholars" right?

 

Data can indeed lie depending on a number of factors.

 

Yet another dodge.

Focus: Bolshevik Revolutionary Communists were labelled Fascists by "scholars". Were the "scholars" right?

 

If by "social conservative" you mean someone who supports Big Government they would obviously be on the same half of a realistic political spectrum as the "Fascists" and "Communists".
But they would not be "Fascists" or "Communists" unless they embraced totalitarianism.

 

Fair enough. I see no benefit to government involvement in the terms of ones relationships. If someone doesn't want to commit to "death shall we part" and prefers a 3 year plan with no auto-renew, they should be able to do so.

 

Those taking advantage of the government benefits would complain if they were taken away. Those pushing the boundaries of who receives the benefits might end up with the complete loss of them.

 

I agree, but they are not benefits. Responsible tax payers are taken advantage of by irresponsible, corrupt politicians. What we call "benefits" is really just being cheated a little less.