Who are the Dems going to run in 2020?

[babe]

I sent in an application for [MENTION=970]babe[/MENTION] since he told me he is smarter than anyone here.

yeah, I'm really disappointed with the JazzFanzers slant on everything. Plenty of really smart people here, just mostly compromised intellectually with an inability to make fundamental contact with truth because of their level of ideological and party line indoctrination. Maybe too much "faith" in media sources that are now proven to be dishonest political partisan in character.

It doesn't matter how smart anyone believes they are, it's the willingness to be intellectually principled enough to put truth above other values, such as political preference or monetary incentives, or fitting in with a little group of bent outta shape political partisans.

By the way, you're a complete liar and a hack saying I told you or anyone I was "smarter" than anyone. "right", maybe, but I have no delusions of being fundamentally "smart", I only insist on rooting through stuff until I can form an opinion that fits the information.

 

[Ron Mexico]

yeah, I'm really disappointed with the JazzFanzers slant on everything. Plenty of really smart people here, just mostly compromised intellectually with an inability to make fundamental contact with truth because of their level of ideological and party line indoctrination. Maybe too much "faith" in media sources that are now proven to be dishonest political partisan in character.

It doesn't matter how smart anyone believes they are, it's the willingness to be intellectually principled enough to put truth above other values, such as political preference or monetary incentives, or fitting in with a little group of bent outta shape political partisans.

By the way, you're a complete liar and a hack saying I told you or anyone I was "smarter" than anyone. "right", maybe, but I have no delusions of being fundamentally "smart", I only insist on rooting through stuff until I can form an opinion that fits the information.

I guess we should all stick to the news sources you follow that give you false stats like the ones you posted about how races have voted.

I assumed when you said everyone was everyone on this board nitwits you were not including yourself, my bad if that is not what you meant. Either way you frequently call intelligence levels of posters in question and come off frequently as acting smarter than other posters. That is what I meant by that.

Are you excited about Banner and his potential new position. I am guessing you like him?

Anyone else see the levels of false stories shared on on conservative leaning facebook pages compared to liberal leaning ones? They were both waaaayyyy to high so I agree many people put faith into things they read. It was around 38% for conservatives and 20% for liberals.

 

[JazzGal]

I've been trying to make sense of how people can see the same things and process them so differently. All I can figure is that each person has a few key issues that matter to them more than any others, combined with their own world view. Information filters through and confirmation bias occurs.

No issue in a political campaign is completely black or white. So your truth is not my truth. The tough part is realizing that your view is not the "right" one as there isn't only one correct interpretation. It's tough allowing others their truth.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[LogGrad98]

I've been trying to make sense of how people can see the same things and process them so differently. All I can figure is that each person has a few key issues that matter to them more than any others, combined with their own world view. Information filters through and confirmation bias occurs.

No issue in a political campaign is completely black or white. So your truth is not my truth. The tough part is realizing that your view is not the "right" one as there isn't only one correct interpretation. It's tough allowing others their truth.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

That's the problem when people confuse opinion for fact.

 

[Hotdog]

yeah, I'm really disappointed with the JazzFanzers slant on everything. Plenty of really smart people here, just mostly compromised intellectually with an inability to make fundamental contact with truth because of their level of ideological and party line indoctrination. Maybe too much "faith" in media sources that are now proven to be dishonest political partisan in character.

It doesn't matter how smart anyone believes they are, it's the willingness to be intellectually principled enough to put truth above other values, such as political preference or monetary incentives, or fitting in with a little group of bent outta shape political partisans.

By the way, you're a complete liar and a hack saying I told you or anyone I was "smarter" than anyone. "right", maybe, but I have no delusions of being fundamentally "smart", I only insist on rooting through stuff until I can form an opinion that fits the information.

Good post.

I like babe. Smart guy.

 

[Hotdog]

Term limit would be fantastic. A truly meaningful act by Trump. Unfortunately, it would require a constitutional amendment. So no chance of it happening, regardless of who controls congress.

Since you say it cant happen, then Ill take the other side of the bet. Probabaly will happen now.

 

[babe]

I guess we should all stick to the news sources you follow that give you false stats like the ones you posted about how races have voted.

I assumed when you said everyone was everyone on this board nitwits you were not including yourself, my bad if that is not what you meant. Either way you frequently call intelligence levels of posters in question and come off frequently as acting smarter than other posters. That is what I meant by that.

Are you excited about Banner and his potential new position. I am guessing you like him?

Anyone else see the levels of false stories shared on on conservative leaning facebook pages compared to liberal leaning ones? They were both waaaayyyy to high so I agree many people put faith into things they read. It was around 38% for conservatives and 20% for liberals.

I imagine the only way we can generate stats on voting by any grouping is by exit polling or looking at concentrations of those groupings. I have no way of identifying "false" stats because I have no direct data. But I believe it is reasonable to believe that a lot of blacks and latinos voted for Trump, more than was for Romney or McCain. My hunch would be 10-15%, and 25-30%, respectively, for those groups, because I sense from my own contacts those rates in those groups. But my "sense" is anecdotal in character and reflects my own little slice of life. Articulate black conservatives like David(?) Webb who has a late night gig on XM125, and Dr. Ben Carson actually warm the cockles of my heart.

I spend some time in the truck stops because I drive a lot and find those places friendly and safe places to take a break. Truckers watching the TV in the lounge come in all kinds, but they are all concerned with the prospect of immigrants taking their rigs for less pay.

Trump makes sense to them because he promises to stabilize their status quo.

I've heard Bannon's successor Alex Marlow several times but I've never listened to Bannon on air before he went over to join Trump. The "news" they serve is definitely contrarian to the mainstream, and provocative to "The Way Things Are". They claim to have affiliates on the ground gathering news in many places, like real news organizations and journalists used to do business, and lots of times their facts prove out pretty good.

I confess to God practically every day the fool that I am, and I could flesh out the notion that I'm a nitwit with thousands of anecdotes. Takes one to know one, I guess. I'm old enough to be somewhat comfortable with all that, and I remember being a young Turk of a kind who believed I knew everything everyone should know, and was willing to tell them so. But that gig has definitely lost it's charm. Maybe I've had a relapse here on JazzFanz, but I think my comments are more intended to warn the uninitiated of the path they seem to be starting out on.

 

[Hotdog]

I imagine the only way we can generate stats on voting by any grouping is by exit polling or looking at concentrations of those groupings. I have no way of identifying "false" stats because I have no direct data. But I believe it is reasonable to believe that a lot of blacks and latinos voted for Trump, more than was for Romney or McCain. My hunch would be 10-15%, and 25-30%, respectively, for those groups, because I sense from my own contacts those rates in those groups. But my "sense" is anecdotal in character and reflects my own little slice of life.

I spend some time in the truck stops because I drive a lot and find those places friendly and safe places to take a break. Truckers watching the TV in the lounge come in all kinds, but they are all concerned with the prospect of immigrants taking their rigs for less pay.

Trump makes sense to them because he promises to stabilize their status quo.

They should be worried about self driving trucks instead. Cause thats gonna happen.

 

[mellow]

I've been trying to make sense of how people can see the same things and process them so differently. All I can figure is that each person has a few key issues that matter to them more than any others, combined with their own world view. Information filters through and confirmation bias occurs.

No issue in a political campaign is completely black or white. So your truth is not my truth. The tough part is realizing that your view is not the "right" one as there isn't only one correct interpretation. It's tough allowing others their truth.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

Scott Adams, the Dilbert artist had an interesting take on this. Basically he said contrary to popular belief it is not humans ability to think rationally, but our ability to think irrationally that makes us special. He uses the example of a person believing in reincarnation or believing Elijah was carried away to heaven as examples of how otherwise rational beings allow irrationality to guide them. Although he uses religious examples, he does not limit irrationality to religious views. He applies to everyone. That is why two people can review the same set of facts and reach two different conclusions.

YOu are right, it is tough to allow others their truth. For a fun exercise, try asking someone with a deeply held belief, different from yours, to explain their position and reasons for believing so. Don't interrupt, don't try to argue or correct them, but do ask follow up questions. I accepted a challenge to do this once, it was a fabulous experience.

 

[Ron Mexico]

I imagine the only way we can generate stats on voting by any grouping is by exit polling or looking at concentrations of those groupings. I have no way of identifying "false" stats because I have no direct data. But I believe it is reasonable to believe that a lot of blacks and latinos voted for Trump, more than was for Romney or McCain. My hunch would be 10-15%, and 25-30%, respectively, for those groups, because I sense from my own contacts those rates in those groups. But my "sense" is anecdotal in character and reflects my own little slice of life.

I spend some time in the truck stops because I drive a lot and find those places friendly and safe places to take a break. Truckers watching the TV in the lounge come in all kinds, but they are all concerned with the prospect of immigrants taking their rigs for less pay.

Trump makes sense to them because he promises to stabilize their status quo.

Trump got more black votes than McCain and Romney because they ran against a black man. It has nothing to do with Trump. Trump has not beat any other Republican before that with regards to Black people voting for him.

I love all the anecdotal evidence you have and the random side arguments and stories you switch to. As a former truck driver for 5 years I agree that many truck drivers supported Trump and have unreasonable fears about minority groups.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHNk0-7hW3U

 

[babe]

Term limit would be fantastic. A truly meaningful act by Trump. Unfortunately, it would require a constitutional amendment. So no chance of it happening, regardless of who controls congress.

Trump and Mark Levin want term limits. Levin thinks the States can do it without Congress under Article Five of the US Constitution. Trump thinks he can convince the country that it would be good business and keep the swamp relatively drained.

 

[Siro]

I imagine the only way we can generate stats on voting by any grouping is by exit polling or looking at concentrations of those groupings. I have no way of identifying "false" stats because I have no direct data. But I believe it is reasonable to believe that a lot of blacks and latinos voted for Trump, more than was for Romney or McCain. My hunch would be 10-15%, and 25-30%, respectively, for those groups, because I sense from my own contacts those rates in those groups. But my "sense" is anecdotal in character and reflects my own little slice of life. Articulate black conservatives like David(?) Webb who has a late night gig on XM125, and Dr. Ben Carson actually warm the cockles of my heart.

I spend some time in the truck stops because I drive a lot and find those places friendly and safe places to take a break. Truckers watching the TV in the lounge come in all kinds, but they are all concerned with the prospect of immigrants taking their rigs for less pay.

Trump makes sense to them because he promises to stabilize their status quo.

I've heard Bannon's successor Alex Marlow several times but I've never listened to Bannon on air before he went over to join Trump. The "news" they serve is definitely contrarian to the mainstream, and provocative to "The Way Things Are". They claim to have affiliates on the ground gathering news in many places, like real news organizations and journalists used to do business, and lots of times their facts prove out pretty good.

I confess to God practically every day the fool that I am, and I could flesh out the notion that I'm a nitwit with thousands of anecdotes. Takes one to know one, I guess.

LOL. How easy it must be for your "opinion to fit the information" when the information is pulled straight outta your ***!

 

[babe]

LOL. How easy it must be for your "opinion to fit the information" when the information is pulled straight outta your ***!

ha ha. Still more reliable than committed progressive pusher sites like Politico or Hillary's media. That kind of information comes carefully selected and polished to a shine to "fit the narrative".

 

[Hotdog]

LOL. How easy it must be for your "opinion to fit the information" when the information is pulled straight outta your ***!

Why are you so intolerant, and disrepectful of others opnions not like yours?

You cant claim to be a man of the people when you treat so many people like trash.

Just saying bruh.

 

[Siro]

ha ha. Still more reliable than committed progressive pusher sites like Politico or Hillary's media. That kind of information comes carefully selected and polished to a shine to "fit the narrative".

Oh I know. I got eye strain from all the rolling they did earlier today reading Politico.

 

[Ron Mexico]

ha ha. Still more reliable than committed progressive pusher sites like Politico or Hillary's media. That kind of information comes carefully selected and polished to a shine to "fit the narrative".

Besides your ***, what are good news sources to you? What websites, people or organizations do you feel provide the best quality honest news to the best of your knowledge?

 

[babe]

Besides your ***, what are good news sources to you? What websites, people or organizations do you feel provide the best quality honest news to the best of your knowledge?

Breitbart????

I don't think there are any, really. I subscribed to The New American for a while, the JBS official rag, but when William Norman Grigg resigned and did some radio rants on how the Founding Fathers got it all wrong on Eminent Domain, I sorta felt left out. I like highways and damns, really, and how we gonna do stuff like that without some high level planning. Then there's Lyndon LaRouche's little band with 20th Century Science and EIR, but even if I love Leonardo Da Vinci I'm just not that Catholic or that socialist, and I think Martin Luther put the Bible back into public circulation, and all that philosophical jazz about Humboldt, Lincoln, and FDR and geometric solids sorta went over my head.

I look for a couple of things in whatever I pick up. Point of View, and axiomatic underpinnings. I reject Politico and most "progressive" rags today because I don't agree with the premise of top-down governance driven by experts however numerous or however deeply sunk into "consensus" views. I don't think college profs or their smooth-cheeked acolytes know how we should talk or think, and it's a howling blight on humanity to have that class holding forth on how others should live.

social justice is a fine notion at first glance, but it's meaning is lost when someone, anyone is assuming the authority to define it. defies the premise of equality right off. Assumes state-managed populace is "free" while denying the most basic human right. . . . to be authentic.

I will read almost any report from almost any news or information source, and walk away with my own opinion.

maybe Siro is right, or close to it. I've been told opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and they all stink.

At the most fundamental philosophical level, what humans believe is their own dreams, and in that respect, that is the most wonderful and redeeming thing about humanity.

[/I]

 

[Siro]

Breitbart????

I don't think there are any, really. I subscribed to The New American for a while, the JBS official rag, but when William Norman Grigg resigned and did some radio rants on how the Founding Fathers got it all wrong on Eminent Domain, I sorta felt left out. I like highways and damns, really, and how we gonna do stuff like that without some high level planning. Then there's Lyndon LaRouche's little band with 20th Century Science and EIR, but even if I love Leonardo Da Vinci I'm just not that Catholic or that socialist, and I think Martin Luther put the Bible back into public circulation, and all that philosophical jazz about Humboldt, Lincoln, and FDR and geometric solids sorta went over my head.

I look for a couple of things in whatever I pick up. Point of View, and axiomatic underpinnings. I reject Politico and most "progressive" rags today because I don't agree with the premise of top-down governance driven by experts however numerous or however deeply sunk into "consensus" views. I don't think college profs or their smooth-cheeked acolytes know how we should talk or think, and it's a howling blight on humanity to have that class holding forth on how others should live.

social justice is a fine notion at first glance, but it's meaning is lost when someone, anyone is assuming the authority to define it. defies the premise of equality right off. Assumes state-managed populace is "free" while denying the most basic human right. . . . to be authentic.

I will read almost any report from almost any news or information source, and walk away with my own opinion.

maybe Siro is right, or close to it. I've been told opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and they all stink.

At the most fundamental philosophical level, what humans believe is their own dreams, and in that respect, that is the most wonderful and redeeming thing about humanity.

[/I]

I don't really agree, but GREAT post!

 

[Gameface]

Breitbart????

I don't think there are any, really. I subscribed to The New American for a while, the JBS official rag, but when William Norman Grigg resigned and did some radio rants on how the Founding Fathers got it all wrong on Eminent Domain, I sorta felt left out. I like highways and damns, really, and how we gonna do stuff like that without some high level planning. Then there's Lyndon LaRouche's little band with 20th Century Science and EIR, but even if I love Leonardo Da Vinci I'm just not that Catholic or that socialist, and I think Martin Luther put the Bible back into public circulation, and all that philosophical jazz about Humboldt, Lincoln, and FDR and geometric solids sorta went over my head.

I look for a couple of things in whatever I pick up. Point of View, and axiomatic underpinnings. I reject Politico and most "progressive" rags today because I don't agree with the premise of top-down governance driven by experts however numerous or however deeply sunk into "consensus" views. I don't think college profs or their smooth-cheeked acolytes know how we should talk or think, and it's a howling blight on humanity to have that class holding forth on how others should live.

social justice is a fine notion at first glance, but it's meaning is lost when someone, anyone is assuming the authority to define it. defies the premise of equality right off. Assumes state-managed populace is "free" while denying the most basic human right. . . . to be authentic.

I will read almost any report from almost any news or information source, and walk away with my own opinion.

maybe Siro is right, or close to it. I've been told opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and they all stink.

At the most fundamental philosophical level, what humans believe is their own dreams, and in that respect, that is the most wonderful and redeeming thing about humanity.

[/I]

It has been a while since you've said anything I haven't heard from 100s of different sources 100s of different times.

Once upon a time? Sure. You'd say stuff I hadn't heard before. Or at least that I hadn't noticed. Then I started paying closer attention and there it was.

 

[Siro]

It has been a while since you've said anything I haven't heard from 100s of different sources 100s of different times.

Once upon a time? Sure. You'd say stuff I hadn't heard before. Or at least that I hadn't noticed. Then I started paying closer attention and there it was.

I really liked his post. A lot Less arrogance and misinformation than usual, and more sincere sharing of perspective.