a-neuroscientist-explains-what-may-be-wrong-with-trump-supporters-brains

[JSt0rm]

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/a-n...at-may-be-wrong-with-trump-supporters-brains/


just posting the beginnings of each paragraph. Moonbeam knew. This explain the gun fetish thing too.

1. The Dunning-Kruger Effect:

Some believe that many of those who support Donald Trump do so because of ignorance — basically they are under-informed or misinformed about the issues at hand. When Trump tells them that crime is skyrocketing in the United States, or that the economy is the worst it’s ever been, they simply take his word for it.

Report Advertisement
The seemingly obvious solution would be to try to reach those people through political ads, expert opinions, and logical arguments that educate with facts. Except none of those things seem to be swaying any Trump supporters from his side, despite great efforts to deliver this information to them directly.

The Dunning-Kruger effect explains that the problem isn’t just that they are misinformed; it’s that they are completely unaware that they are misinformed. This creates a double burden.

Hypersensitivity to Threat
Science has unequivocally shown that the conservative brain has an exaggerated fear response when faced with stimuli that may be perceived as threatening. A classic study in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological reaction to startling noises and graphic images compared to liberals. A brain-imaging study published in Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala — a structure that is electrically active during states of fear and anxiety. And a 2014 fMRI study found that it is possible to predict whether someone is a liberal or conservative simply by looking at their brain activity while they view threatening or disgusting images, such as mutilated bodies. Specifically, the brains of self-identified conservatives generated more activity overall in response to the disturbing imag.

1. Terror Management Theory

A well-supported theory from social psychology, called Terror Management Theory, explains why Trump’s fear mongering is doubly effective.

The theory is based on the fact that humans have a unique awareness of their own mortality. The inevitably of one’s death creates existential terror and anxiety that is always residing below the surface. In order to manage this terror, humans adopt cultural worldviews — like religions, political ideologies, and national identities — that act as a buffer by instilling life with meaning and value.

Terror Management Theory predicts that when people are reminded of their own mortality, which happens with fear mongering, they will more strongly defend those who share their worldviews and national or ethnic identity, and act out more aggressively towards those who do not. Hundreds of studies have confirmed this hypothesis, and some have specifically shown that triggering thoughts of death tends to shift people towards the right.

1. High Attentional Engagement

According to a recent study that monitored brain activity while participants watched 40 minutes of political ads and debate clips from the presidential candidates, Donald Trump is unique in his ability to keep the brain engaged. While Hillary Clinton could only hold attention for so long, Trump kept both attention and emotional arousal high throughout the viewing session. This pattern of activity was seen even when Trump made remarks that individuals didn’t necessarily agree with. His showmanship and simple messages clearly resonate at a visceral level.

 

[OverVolt]

Yea but its an evolutionary adaptation in certain societal situations. Neuroscientists don't survive big societal swings. Not ones like that.

Einstein for example was smart enough to flee Nazi Germany before shit went down.

What will be telling is when people in Japan lose thier shit, because they are typically so reserved and Japan is ALL-IN on making their society work, and they are a relatively large global economy. So when Japan goes nuts, globalization is going to go nuts.

 

[Jaskalas]

Some believe that many of those who support Donald Trump do so because of ignorance — basically they are under-informed or misinformed about the issues at hand. When Trump tells them that crime is skyrocketing in the United States, or that the economy is the worst it’s ever been, they simply take his word for it.

1: #BLM and those protests are injecting a sense of fear and violence into the national dialog.
2: The facts you choose are not the only ones that exist. For different individuals truth and reality can clash based on perceptions derived from the facts you choose to hold, and the facts you choose to ignore. Ex: Violent crime rising in US cities.
3: Again, the economy? Based on the facts you want to look at. There are incredibly large problems looming on the horizon, and income inequality remains abysmal. Soon as a Republican becomes President you'd return to hammering them on the terrible economy.

Take his word for it? We don't need to, Trump says what we already know is the truth on both crime and the economy.
Your opposition does not automatically make you correct on those issues. No matter how haughtily you declare victory over the facts, it rings as hollow as Trump's own claims of superiority.

 

[Jhhnn]

Donald Trump is unique in his ability to keep the brain engaged.

It's a gift, a talent, that all con men share. Other people have it, too, but you can't be a con man w/o it. He works people's heads in ways they don't catch on to. He takes the way they think & manipulates it faster than they can tag along.

His talent in that regard is truly astounding. The rich milieu of fear, uncertainty & distrust he taps into wasn't of his making, however. Neither was the divisiveness, the negativity, the nihilism, or the shitty attitudes. The Republican Party built that, make no mistake about it. They've nurtured it, fed it, coaxed it along & now they can't figure out why they can't control it.

 

[Jhhnn]

1: #BLM and those protests are injecting a sense of fear and violence into the national dialog.
2: The facts you choose are not the only ones that exist. For different individuals truth and reality can clash based on perceptions derived from the facts you choose to hold, and the facts you choose to ignore. Ex: Violent crime rising in US cities.
3: Again, the economy? Based on the facts you want to look at. There are incredibly large problems looming on the horizon, and income inequality remains abysmal. Soon as a Republican becomes President you'd return to hammering them on the terrible economy.

Take his word for it? We don't need to, Trump says what we already know is the truth on both crime and the economy.
Your opposition does not automatically make you correct on those issues. No matter how haughtily you declare victory over the facts, it rings as hollow as Trump's own claims of superiority.

Why does BLM frighten you? because you've been told to be afraid. It's the same with the rest of it. Trump goes on like the end of the world is nigh, always a fave with conservatives.. It's not. Unsurprisingly, we have nothing to fear but fear itself & those who promulgate it.

 

[JSt0rm]

That's why we have so many guns. Irrational fears of the black man. White people are too basic for a modern world. They did good when they could sip scotch and machine gun tribal people. But those days are long gone.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's why we have so many guns. Irrational fears of the black man. White people are too basic for a modern world. They did good when they could sip scotch and machine gun tribal people. But those days are long gone.

Too divisive for me. Attitude is half the battle. We need better ones than that.

 

[JSt0rm]

Fuck them crackers. Breed them out of existence.

 

[JSt0rm]

Too divisive for me. Attitude is half the battle. We need better ones than that.

If u notice I throw into their faces what they fear the most and I mock them for it.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Hypersensitivity to Threat
Science has unequivocally shown that the conservative brain has an exaggerated fear response when faced with stimuli that may be perceived as threatening. A classic study in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological reaction to startling noises and graphic images compared to liberals. A brain-imaging study published in Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala — a structure that is electrically active during states of fear and anxiety. And a 2014 fMRI study found that it is possible to predict whether someone is a liberal or conservative simply by looking at their brain activity while they view threatening or disgusting images, such as mutilated bodies. Specifically, the brains of self-identified conservatives generated more activity overall in response to the disturbing imag.

The other side to this is that liberals are so open-minded that when they see mutilated bodies, they think "Eh what's the big deal". Would explain their hesitancy to acknowledge that certain groups/religions/etc do certain bad things at a rate higher than other groups.

 

[Jhhnn]

The other side to this is that liberals are so open-minded that when they see mutilated bodies, they think "Eh what's the big deal". Would explain their hesitancy to acknowledge that certain groups/religions/etc do certain bad things at a rate higher than other groups.

Must you spread that shit everywhere? The study says no such thing.

 

[zinfamous]

2: The facts you choose are not the only ones that exist. For different individuals truth and reality can clash based on perceptions derived from the facts you choose to hold, and the facts you choose to ignore. Ex: Violent crime rising in US cities.

a spike is not a trend. Spikes might be interesting for a moment, but they aren't all that relevant when it comes to what is actually happening in society. Do you not agree?

Violent crime is very much down, and it has been trending down at a rather steady pace since 1970. Do you not agree with those numbers? If not--hell, or if so--why is it that one half, or 2 years of data are suddenly more important than the actual pattern? You know, when it comes to addressing policy that has actually been working over a long period of time? Why would one mess with something that is actually working, and working extremely well?

I was going to post a collection of various charts from various articles that say the same thing, but here it is in one place. That saves me some linking, and you some more searching. But, please: I encourage you to do your own research in this matter. That means not searching for the one source that specifically disputes the piles of data collecting on this subject

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/dueling-claims-on-crime-trend/

 

[Perknose]

The other side to this is that liberals are so open-minded that when they see mutilated bodies, they think "Eh what's the big deal". Would explain their hesitancy to acknowledge that certain groups/religions/etc do certain bad things at a rate higher than other groups.

Your answer makes a critical hidden assumption, that the baseline "good and appropriate" reaction is the conservative's level of fear and revulsion which therefore makes the liberal one "eh what's the big deal", to use your words.

Nothing in either study supports your assumption.

Note the bolded words in this sentence, please:

"A brain-imaging study published in Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala — a structure that is electrically active during states of fear and anxiety."

A liberal showing lesser amounts of fear and anxiety does not mean they are not entirely morally opposed with every fiber of their being to something that results in mutilated bodies, it just means they don't get whack-a-doodle bent out of shape and go out and buy 10 more guns for the "coming race war" or whatever apocalypse involving lefties, darkies, muslims and the poors that floods their YUUUUGE amygdalas.

 

[zinfamous]

Your answer makes a critical hidden assumption, that the baseline "good and appropriate" reaction is the conservative's level of fear and revulsion which therefore makes the liberal one "eh what's the big deal", to use your words.

Nothing in either study supports your assumption.

Note the bolded words in this sentence, please:

"A brain-imaging study published in Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala — a structure that is electrically active during states of fear and anxiety."

A liberal showing lesser amounts of fear and anxiety does not mean they are not entirely morally opposed with every fiber of their being to something that results in mutilated bodies, it just means they don't get whack-a-doodle bent out of shape and go out and buy 10 more guns for the "coming race war" or whatever apocalypse involving lefties, darkies, muslims and the poors that floods their YUUUUGE amygdalas.

exactly. The point of this study is about the response, not the analysis of the stimulus. The fear response is reptilian. It's instant and, quite frequently, irrational.

The point here is that "the liberal response" is more measured.

"Damn, that's a horrible thing those people are going through," the liberal might say when seeing a photo of a dead Libyan boy. "Those folks have been killing each other for years now, and it seems like they are just going to keep killing each other until one (or all) of those sides is dead. Maybe we should look into options for peace so they jsut stop killing each other.

--

"Damn, look at that dead Syrian child, so sad" a god-fearing conservative might say. "We best nuke them all and end this violence now, lest we prolong their misery of inevitably wiping themselves out, and lest they get bored killing each other and try to kill us. We need to close our borders so none of them try to come over here, and in case they sneak through those cracks (we are only ever incompetent, us horrible people in this horrible country of the USA that can never do anything right--hell, we are practically living in HELL just like those Syrians it is so fucking bad on all of our streets!) I'm going to be ready with these dozen new guns and ammo I bought! Freedom will allow me to shoot scary looking immigrants if I feel threatened! Fuck yeah! This is how we make America great again!"

etc.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Your answer makes a critical hidden assumption, that the baseline "good and appropriate" reaction is the conservative's level of fear and revulsion which therefore makes the liberal one "eh what's the big deal", to use your words.

Nothing in either study supports your assumption.

Note the bolded words in this sentence, please:

"A brain-imaging study published in Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala — a structure that is electrically active during states of fear and anxiety."

A liberal showing lesser amounts of fear and anxiety does not mean they are not entirely morally opposed with every fiber of their being to something that results in mutilated bodies, it just means they don't get whack-a-doodle bent out of shape and go out and buy 10 more guns for the "coming race war" or whatever apocalypse involving lefties, darkies, muslims and the poors that floods their YUUUUGE amygdalas.

Nah, I'm just countering one silly argument by JSt0rm ("Conservatives are more responsive to fear, therefore they must exist in a constant state of terror when near minorities") with an equally silly counter-example. The study similarly doesn't make a statement regarding a liberal state of non-fear being rational; it merely provided a method of associating fear and political orientation.

exactly. The point of this study is about the response, not the analysis of the stimulus. The fear response is reptilian. It's instant and, quite frequently, irrational.

The point here is that "the liberal response" is more measured.

"Damn, that's a horrible thing those people are going through," the liberal might say when seeing a photo of a dead Libyan boy. "Those folks have been killing each other for years now, and it seems like they are just going to keep killing each other until one (or all) of those sides is dead. Maybe we should look into options for peace so they jsut stop killing each other.

--

"Damn, look at that dead Syrian child, so sad" a god-fearing conservative might say. "We best nuke them all and end this violence now, lest we prolong their misery of inevitably wiping themselves out, and lest they get bored killing each other and try to kill us. We need to close our borders so none of them try to come over here, and in case they sneak through those cracks (we are only ever incompetent, us horrible people in this horrible country of the USA that can never do anything right--hell, we are practically living in HELL just like those Syrians it is so fucking bad on all of our streets!) I'm going to be ready with these dozen new guns and ammo I bought! Freedom will allow me to shoot scary looking immigrants if I feel threatened! Fuck yeah! This is how we make America great again!"

etc.

How do you determine that the fear response is frequently irrational? I mean, before getting to that, what do you even mean by "irrational"? Animals evolved a fear response for a reason. Reptiles may not be the most intelligent, but I'd argue that as a percentage of full respective mental faculties, that they're actually more rational than we are. Their goals are purely driven by survival as individuals and species. Humans have the highest potential for irrational behavior, with complicated emotions and mood swings all working in conflict with each other.

Is it rational to value the livelihood of others over oneself? I'm not particularly anti-refugee, if we focus particularly on educated and less religious ones, I don't have any issue taking them in. People shitting themselves over every single refugee are surely excessively fearful and irrational. On the other hand, we just had a thread a couple weeks ago about Trump's Skittles analogy, where a handful of liberals were saying they had no problem if many refugees WERE terrorists, as long as there was a net positive increase in human comfort. I'd argue that to be just as irrational, certainly emotionally-driven, especially when there are noted cases where bringing in excessive people from an outside population causes them to bring the culture that started the problem to begin with.

 

[zinfamous]

Nah, I'm just countering one silly argument by JSt0rm ("Conservatives are more responsive to fear, therefore they must exist in a constant state of terror when near minorities") with an equally silly counter-example. The study similarly doesn't make a statement regarding a liberal state of non-fear being rational; it merely provided a method of associating fear and political orientation.



How do you determine that the fear response is frequently irrational? I mean, before getting to that, what do you even mean by "irrational"? Animals evolved a fear response for a reason. Reptiles may not be the most intelligent, but I'd argue that as a percentage of full respective mental faculties, that they're actually more rational than we are. Their goals are purely driven by survival as individuals and species. Humans have the highest potential for irrational behavior, with complicated emotions and mood swings all working in conflict with each other.

Is it rational to value the livelihood of others over oneself? I'm not particularly anti-refugee, if we focus particularly on educated and less religious ones, I don't have any issue taking them in. People shitting themselves over every single refugee are surely excessively fearful and irrational. On the other hand, we just had a thread a couple weeks ago about Trump's Skittles analogy, where a handful of liberals were saying they had no problem if many refugees WERE terrorists, as long as there was a net positive increase in human comfort. I'd argue that to be just as irrational, certainly emotionally-driven, especially when there are noted cases where bringing in excessive people from an outside population causes them to bring the culture that started the problem to begin with.

You make a good point, which is why I edited my post to "more often irrational" before posting.

Fight or flight response isn't ever informed by rational/irrational consideration, because it wouldn't be an effective and useful response--it is a useful and necessary selective instinct and we know this because it is brain-stem level function (what we call "reptilian responses"--the part of the brain that all animals share--yes, even humans and lizards). For an effective fight or flight response, no thinking can be involved. It is purely reactionary, so you have a more or less equal-or-worse chance of running into greater danger in an attempt to flee, or marching towards death by decided to fight that bear. Yeah, sometimes you have no choice (can't get around that bear if you are backed into a cave), but we do know that the selection tends to favor those that intentionally avoid these threats--putting themselves in situations where flight/fight would actually be triggered. This argues that allowing oneself to be in a position to consider, and interpret, the consequences of a certain event is preferable to following a course that inevitably gets you trapped in a cave with that bear.

All of this is rather difficult to attribute to things like human interpretations of complicated political, geopolitical, social interactions. It sort of invokes the silly specter of "social darwinism" (a theory which, in no way, is applicable to the function of natural selection--a psychosocial designation that may be popular in literature, but isn't science).

The argument wasn't that "many refuges might be terrorists" and so that is OK--the argument is that the actual number--far, far less than 1% might be--and so that is OK. This is the same kind of risk we have always had when it comes to threats from immigration. Essentially non-significant. ...however, I don't like to equate the risk of a terrorist with the risk of something like traffic deaths or falling in your shower or even any other kind of random or targeted murder. I do think that the specter of terrorism and the risk of such has a greater effect on the population than can be determined by simple numbers.

 

[skull]

Your answer makes a critical hidden assumption, that the baseline "good and appropriate" reaction is the conservative's level of fear and revulsion which therefore makes the liberal one "eh what's the big deal", to use your words.

Nothing in either study supports your assumption.

Note the bolded words in this sentence, please:

"A brain-imaging study published in Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala — a structure that is electrically active during states of fear and anxiety."

A liberal showing lesser amounts of fear and anxiety does not mean they are not entirely morally opposed with every fiber of their being to something that results in mutilated bodies, it just means they don't get whack-a-doodle bent out of shape and go out and buy 10 more guns for the "coming race war" or whatever apocalypse involving lefties, darkies, muslims and the poors that floods their YUUUUGE amygdalas.

Are you saying I shouldn't go buy 10 more guns because I fear trump, hillary and both their supporters? I was thinking 2 and more ammo though is that more reasonable?

 

[skull]

exactly. The point of this study is about the response, not the analysis of the stimulus. The fear response is reptilian. It's instant and, quite frequently, irrational.

The point here is that "the liberal response" is more measured.

"Damn, that's a horrible thing those people are going through," the liberal might say when seeing a photo of a dead Libyan boy. "Those folks have been killing each other for years now, and it seems like they are just going to keep killing each other until one (or all) of those sides is dead. Maybe we should look into options for peace so they jsut stop killing each other.

--

"Damn, look at that dead Syrian child, so sad" a god-fearing conservative might say. "We best nuke them all and end this violence now, lest we prolong their misery of inevitably wiping themselves out, and lest they get bored killing each other and try to kill us. We need to close our borders so none of them try to come over here, and in case they sneak through those cracks (we are only ever incompetent, us horrible people in this horrible country of the USA that can never do anything right--hell, we are practically living in HELL just like those Syrians it is so fucking bad on all of our streets!) I'm going to be ready with these dozen new guns and ammo I bought! Freedom will allow me to shoot scary looking immigrants if I feel threatened! Fuck yeah! This is how we make America great again!"

etc.

Thats the problem with the two party system only the two extremes get air time. You left out the part where the liberals want to try and save the unsaveable while tearing us apart in the process.

Liberals might want peace but hillary isn't a liberal and doesn't give a shit about the people in the middle east. Just like she didn't give a shit about our people in the embassy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Thats the problem with the two party system only the two extremes get air time. You left out the part where the liberals want to try and save the unsaveable while tearing us apart in the process.

Liberals might want peace but hillary isn't a liberal and doesn't give a shit about the people in the middle east. Just like she didn't give a shit about our people in the embassy.

Bullshit. There is only one extremist party in this country, Republicans. They're split right now between radical retrograde money interests & a reactionary social element. The former yearns & strives for another gilded age & the latter mostly want to make America White again. The latter will buy into their own economic destruction in pursuit of their own hopeless goal.

They're so far out in the weeds that they criticize the center left democratic coalition as the establishment, the stagnant status quo that's really the result of a Repub Congress holding the line in service to the financial elite. They'd go further if they could, & would obviously be able to do so with Trump in the Whitehouse. Their tax & regulatory proposals are entirely congruent.

 

[OverVolt]

To me its obvious you guys have been living in a bubble for awhile and don't realize whats actually happening to the county.

Its like... the bums that people step over on their way to work changed from Vets with mental health problems to 20 year old white dudes and you never noticed.

And the infrastructure/cities continue to decay but all you ever go to are a gourmet grocery store and live in your gated suburb or something.

"I moved away why can't everyone else" says everyone who fled a decaying metropolis as like a million people are left there to decay in squalor, lack of jobs, etc.

Or the people who live in the gentrified communities in cities all like "I dont see the big deal the city isn't so bad" even though you literally drive through a decaying festering eyesore everyday.

Morons.

SF, tech capital of the world, grab your coffee while some dude shoots heroin under a bridge around the corner.

 

[zinfamous]

Thats the problem with the two party system only the two extremes get air time. You left out the part where the liberals want to try and save the unsaveable while tearing us apart in the process.

Liberals might want peace but hillary isn't a liberal and doesn't give a shit about the people in the middle east. Just like she didn't give a shit about our people in the embassy.

You must have some exclusive access to the thoughts of Hillary Clinton to make such assertions as if they were grounded in anything but fantasy.

 

[Moonbeam]

HamburgerBoy: The other side to this is that liberals are so open-minded that when they see mutilated bodies, they think "Eh what's the big deal". Would explain their hesitancy to acknowledge that certain groups/religions/etc do certain bad things at a rate higher than other groups.

M: I was going to respond to your post yesterday but thought to myself, why bother. It is known also about the conservative brain that it just gets better at rationalizing, the more its delusions are challenged.

HB: Nah, I'm just countering one silly argument by JSt0rm ("Conservatives are more responsive to fear, therefore they must exist in a constant state of terror when near minorities") with an equally silly counter-example. The study similarly doesn't make a statement regarding a liberal state of non-fear being rational; it merely provided a method of associating fear and political orientation.

M: I would call this exhibit 1 of that ability.

HB: How do you determine that the fear response is frequently irrational? I mean, before getting to that, what do you even mean by "irrational"? Animals evolved a fear response for a reason. Reptiles may not be the most intelligent, but I'd argue that as a percentage of full respective mental faculties, that they're actually more rational than we are. Their goals are purely driven by survival as individuals and species. Humans have the highest potential for irrational behavior, with complicated emotions and mood swings all working in conflict with each other.

Is it rational to value the livelihood of others over oneself? I'm not particularly anti-refugee, if we focus particularly on educated and less religious ones, I don't have any issue taking them in. People shitting themselves over every single refugee are surely excessively fearful and irrational. On the other hand, we just had a thread a couple weeks ago about Trump's Skittles analogy, where a handful of liberals were saying they had no problem if many refugees WERE terrorists, as long as there was a net positive increase in human comfort. I'd argue that to be just as irrational, certainly emotionally-driven, especially when there are noted cases where bringing in excessive people from an outside population causes them to bring the culture that started the problem to begin with.

M: I would tag this as a second example.

DTrump: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK? It’s, like, incredible.”

Quotes from the link to ponder:

1. The Dunning-Kruger effect explains that the problem isn’t just that they are misinformed; it’s that they are completely unaware that they are misinformed. This creates a double burden.

2. By constantly emphasizing existential threat, Trump creates a psychological condition that makes the brain respond positively rather than negatively to bigoted statements and divisive rhetoric.

Pay close attention here:

Terror Management Theory predicts that when people are reminded of their own mortality, which happens with fear mongering, they will more strongly defend those who share their worldviews and national or ethnic identity, and act out more aggressively towards those who do not. Hundreds of studies have confirmed this hypothesis, and some have specifically shown that triggering thoughts of death tends to shift people towards the right.

And compare it to this:

So what can we do to potentially change the minds of Trump loyalists before voting day in November? As a cognitive neuroscientist, it grieves me to say that there may be nothing we can do. The overwhelming majority of these people may be beyond reach, at least in the short term. The best we can do is to motivate everyone else to get out to the booths and check the box that doesn’t belong to a narcissistic nationalist who has the potential to damage the nation beyond repair.

Now is that really the best we can do or is that just the fear response of the liberal mind to the fear of death represented by the madness of irrationality? Can the liberal brain react to conservative insanity with anything other than its mirror image. Isn't it true that the natural response of a cornered animal as used above in another post is to fight madness with madness itself? Do we not create what we fear?

So can we see any hope at all anywhere? We know from the science there is no hope so why all the flailing about on the liberal side. Well, what is the psychological condition of people who suffer long term, say those who were in concentration camps or who fought hopeless killing wars, who have lost everything. Do not some of them experience existential transcendence.

A saying from the German side in WW1. The situation is hopeless but not serious.

So my response to you then as a resident of a damaged brain hopelessly lost in delusion who knows not one thing that can confirm or deny anything is that I hope you have a wonderful day. It just rained here after months and months of the dry season and everything will soon turn green. The almond trees will bloom in fields of yellow mustard flowers under blue skies and white clouds. How like tears, the rain.....

 

[WHAMPOM]

I am reminded when a church leader in found in bed with a dead whore or a young boy and parishioners are oblivious to the circumstances.

 

[fskimospy]

1: #BLM and those protests are injecting a sense of fear and violence into the national dialog.
2: The facts you choose are not the only ones that exist. For different individuals truth and reality can clash based on perceptions derived from the facts you choose to hold, and the facts you choose to ignore. Ex: Violent crime rising in US cities.
3: Again, the economy? Based on the facts you want to look at. There are incredibly large problems looming on the horizon, and income inequality remains abysmal. Soon as a Republican becomes President you'd return to hammering them on the terrible economy.

Take his word for it? We don't need to, Trump says what we already know is the truth on both crime and the economy.
Your opposition does not automatically make you correct on those issues. No matter how haughtily you declare victory over the facts, it rings as hollow as Trump's own claims of superiority.

Violent crime is at some of the lowest rates in modern history right now. No rational person can argue otherwise.

Trump is massively lying about crime. We should all join together in recognizing that.

 

[fskimospy]

To me its obvious you guys have been living in a bubble for awhile and don't realize whats actually happening to the county.

Its like... the bums that people step over on their way to work changed from Vets with mental health problems to 20 year old white dudes and you never noticed.

And the infrastructure/cities continue to decay but all you ever go to are a gourmet grocery store and live in your gated suburb or something.

"I moved away why can't everyone else" says everyone who fled a decaying metropolis as like a million people are left there to decay in squalor, lack of jobs, etc.

Or the people who live in the gentrified communities in cities all like "I dont see the big deal the city isn't so bad" even though you literally drive through a decaying festering eyesore everyday.

Morons.

SF, tech capital of the world, grab your coffee while some dude shoots heroin under a bridge around the corner.

Cities in the US are the primary engines of economic growth currently. The idea that they are 'decaying' requires some impressive denial of reality.

You should probably be careful calling anyone a moron when you're getting basic stuff like that wrong.