ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

I'm guessing Russia Collusion Watch ended now that it has been proven.

Not sure if joking or delusional. Sincere opinion is so rarely distinguishable from satire these days.

"

faerwin wrote:

This is starting to get really dangerous and there an emergency should be declared. Emergency funding for food inspection that is. This could lead to hundreds of thousands of cases of contamination that reach the consumers.

Food inspection by the federal government: one of the stupidest things ever. This should be done on a state by state basis.

It is just insane how many different aspects of society the federal government dominates.

"

Khoranth wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

This is starting to get really dangerous and there an emergency should be declared. Emergency funding for food inspection that is. This could lead to hundreds of thousands of cases of contamination that reach the consumers.

Food inspection by the federal government: one of the stupidest things ever. This should be done on a state by state basis.

It is just insane how many different aspects of society the federal government dominates.

no it shouldn't. Otherwise you'd have a giant maze of complications when it comes to forbidden/allowed products for each states. It's one case where it's much better for it to be federal.

Anyone else think Logan Paul looks like a young Donald Trump?

"

“A mixture of gullibility & cynicism had been an outstanding characteristic of mob mentality before it became an everyday phenomenon of masses. In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything & nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. The mixture in itself was remarkable enough, because it spelled the end of the illusion that gullibility was a weakness of unsuspecting primitive souls and cynicism the vice of superior and refined minds.

Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness."

-Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 382

All quite good. However, I think it is very true indeed that the leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumptions. You seem to believe it is somehow incorrect to assume this is how people are and inevitably will be, as opposed to, say, the "persuasion filter on reality" of Scott Adams who says reason and evidence are among the least effective tools to convince the masses — while the most effective persuader is fear.

Has it occurred to you that, in saying the leaders' assumptions were correct, Arendt is herself being deeply cynical? Isn't believing such an assumption to be true "believing the worst?" Have you pondered that in expecting you to accept her conclusion based off her mere words, rather than painstakingly recreating her research, she is expecting of you a certain degree of gullibility? How would you react to the claim that Arendt's research had been debunked? Even as she describes the ingredients to successful propaganda, Arendt incorporates those ingredients in the description itself. She's describing both why the masses believed totalitarian propaganda and, more subtly, why you believe her. She understands your fear and is telling you that it is real.

Describing how a thing works doesn't usually undermine its effectiveness. Describing in detail the gunpowder firing process doesn't magically allow a knife to win in a gunfight. Thus it should not surprise you to find "your" side engaging in these kinds of propaganda operations against the propaganda of the politicians you despise. Just fighting fire with fire. Taking the high road and abstaining from the use of "firearms" might work in Batman comics but not in the real-life ideological battlefield. You make the same excuses as Arendt's masses for those on "your" side when they engage in propaganda, even as you shame your opponents for their use thereof.

Trump isn't new in terms of playing such propaganda games. He's simply very good at it — good enough to directly take on the reigning champions, the mainstream media, and NOT get KO'd in Round One.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

"

It was a foundational promise of Donald Trump’s historic presidential campaign: Mexico would pay for his 2,000 mile border wall. But as he desperately fights for $5.7 billion in taxpayer money for the project, Trump now claims he never said Mexico would directly foot the bill.

“Obviously, I never said this and I never meant they’re going to write out a check,” the president told reporters Thursday at the White House.

Obviously you did, fuckwit.

I remember Trump saying Mexico would pay for the wall directly. I also remember him backpedaling on that and saying Mexico might pay for it indirectly after the primary, especially as President-Elect when he was trying to moderate his tone. I can definitely see how confirmation bias would influence how people remember Trump's 2016 positions — Democrats would be inclined to remember the more outrageous version, while Republicans might prefer to believe the new, calmer Trump was the only one.

But I remember what actually happened.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I remember Trump saying Mexico would pay for the wall directly. I also remember him backpedaling on that and saying Mexico might pay for it indirectly after the primary, especially as President-Elect when he was trying to moderate his tone. I can definitely see how confirmation bias would influence how people remember Trump's 2016 positions — Democrats would be inclined to remember the more outrageous version, while Republicans might prefer to believe the new, calmer Trump was the only one.

But I remember what actually happened.

And I still don't care! Who pays for the Wall is nowhere in the league of "If you like your doctor..." or "What difference, at this point, does it make?" =^[.]^=

The american mentality is to never admit you were wrong, no matter what. They see that as strength when in reality, it's a weakness, and a freaking huge one at that.