Most Bush Supporters: Intentionally ignorant or unable to process reality?

[OpieCunningham]

Let's try that again by removing the word "stupid".

Here's the report.

Here's the closed thread.

Now -


As you can read in the report, most people of both camps believe that we should not have invaded Iraq if Iraq had no WMDs or strong connections to Al Qaeda. And as it turns out, most Bush supporters support the invasion of Iraq. And as it turns out, Iraq had no WMDs or significant methods of obtaining them and no strong connections to Al Qaeda.

But most Bush supporters do not believe the reality.

Are they intentionally ignorant - meaning, they know that the reality differs from their belief in some way, but they are not going to adjust their belief to match reality ... or are they lacking in the mental capability to recognize that their belief differs from reality?


And I would note that, although this is unflattering to Bush supporters who do not believe in reality, that is no excuse to consider it trolling.

[Kalibah]

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

Let's try that again by removing the word "stupid".

Here's the report.

Here's the closed thread.

Now -


As you can read in the report, most people of both camps believe that we should not have invaded Iraq if Iraq had no WMDs or strong connections to Al Qaeda. And as it turns out, most Bush supporters support the invasion of Iraq. And as it turns out, Iraq had no WMDs or significant methods of obtaining them and no strong connections to Al Qaeda.

But most Bush supporters do not believe the reality.

Are they intentionally ignorant - meaning, they know that the reality differs from their belief in some way, but they are not going to adjust their belief to match reality ... or are they lacking in the mental capability to recognize that their belief differs from reality?


And I would note that, although this is unflattering to Bush supporters who do not believe in reality, that is no excuse to consider it trolling.

Supporting it is different that realizing what we know now.

Just because many Republicans still support the war, doesnt mean they dont aknowledge there are no WMDs ( although to infuse some more imflamitory remarks, did he move them to Syria ). Maybe they supported it for the same reasons John Kerry was pimping it in 2003- because he has the potential to make them, or the intent to, or because he was a brutal dictator, and We'd rather draw the Islamic terrorists into Iraq and kill them there, than over here ( ie Honeypot)


Your arugment assumes the only reason Republicans believe we should have gone to war was simply for WMDs.

[Willravel]

I have to back you up on this. While the thread seems to violate TFP rules, it does in fact have a firm basis in reality. I know because I used to be one of them. Then my cousin hit me in the face, litterally. He was like, "If you don't take this seriously, you'll have to deal with the outcome." It's easy to ignore truths that sting, but that doesn't make them lies. People have to realize that Pax Americana, the American Empire, is alive and thriving. We are a global conglomerate; a corporate entity. We conduct takeovers of other companies that have the resources that we have, and everyone is blind to it. CNN spews propoganda, as everyone goes along willingly. It's sad BUT TRUE.

[OpieCunningham]

Originally Posted by Kalibah

Your arugment assumes the only reason Republicans believe we should have gone to war was simply for WMDs.

No. My argument assumes that most Bush supporters believe that Iraq had WMDs and/or strong connections with Al Qaeda (this assumption has been demonstrated to be accurate, in the report). It also assumes that one of the oft stated most important reasons for electing Bush is due to his position on the War on Terror and that Iraq is a major portion of the War on Terror (this assumption is based in no small part on many of the comments by people on TFP who support the President).

Therefore, if most Bush supporters believe in a fantasy and this fantasy is one of, if not the main, reason they support the President - my question still stands.

[Seaver]

I supported and STILL support the Iraq war.

No I didnt then and still dont give a damn about WMD's. The fact is Saddam and his kids were sadistic and demented and I believe Iraq will in the end be much better off without them. Now it may take a while but all good things do.

[Kalibah]

Bush is tougher on the War on Terror, will attack BEFORE something happens-


that is the oft stated reason you refer too


and his stance on the war on terror has nothing to do with WMDs... its just the idea we will act first, and not wait for a larger colitation, which i have a hard time John Kerry would act even then, since he voted against the Gulf War when we had the coliation.


I still dont see the connection betwen why people thinking Bush is tougher on War on Teror, and what that has to do with WMDs
but maybe its just me...

[OpieCunningham]

Originally Posted by Seaver

I supported and STILL support the Iraq war.

No I didnt then and still dont give a damn about WMD's. The fact is Saddam and his kids were sadistic and demented and I believe Iraq will in the end be much better off without them. Now it may take a while but all good things do.

That's fine. In this thread, I'm not interested in your opinions on the validity of the war. This is a thread to discuss the people that believe things and support our President who seems to believe things which are simply not based in reality.

[OpieCunningham]

Originally Posted by Kalibah

Bush is tougher on the War on Terror, will attack BEFORE something happens-

I still dont see the connection betwen why people thinking Bush is tougher on War on Teror, and what that has to do with WMDs
but maybe its just me...

The connection is right there in your post.

We invaded Iraq because Bush said we had to do something BEFORE Iraq does something with its' WMDs.

Yes, there are a slew of other reasons given these days for why we needed to invade Iraq. But the report demonstrates that most Bush supporters believe that the initial and main reason is still valid even though it is not.

I don't see how anyone can claim that their belief that Iraq had WMDs and a connection to Al Qaeda is NOT affecting their judgement on who to vote for.

[ShaniFaye]

Im sorry...but I have to say this....its threads like this that keep me from even wanting to participate in the political forums....

[Ustwo]

Restarting locked threads is a bad thing.

[OpieCunningham]

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

And I would note that, although this is unflattering to Bush supporters who do not believe in reality, that is no excuse to consider it trolling.

Why exactly are we not allowed to talk about how a large number of people who believe in a known fantasy are affecting this election?

[Kalibah]

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

The connection is right there in your post.

We invaded Iraq because Bush said we had to do something BEFORE Iraq does something with its' WMDs.

Yes, there are a slew of other reasons given these days for why we needed to invade Iraq. But the report demonstrates that most Bush supporters believe that the initial and main reason is still valid even though it is not.

I don't see how anyone can claim that their belief that Iraq had WMDs and a connection to Al Qaeda is NOT affecting their judgement on who to vote for.

BEFORE something happens is different than BEFORE WMDs

I meant it in correlation to 9/11. I feel Bush is more likely to pursure targets outside the US rather than waiting for them.


That said even mr.kerry said Saddam was an imment threat- so your saying that when a democrat is for the war, he is sane, but when a republican is hes disalussional?

[Halx]

It's compelling enough to watch a little longer to see if any Bush supporter would dare throw Opie a bone.

[OpieCunningham]

Originally Posted by Kalibah

That said even mr.kerry said Saddam was an imment threat- so your saying that when a democrat is for the war, he is sane, but when a republican is hes disalussional?

No. What I am saying is that, today, when any person is for the war because Iraq had WMDs and a connection to Al Qaeda and this is the reason they are supporting Candidate X, such a person is living in a fantasy and their decision is based on that fantasy.

When the numbers show that most (NOT ALL) Bush supporters likely fall into that category, I have to ask why.

Do they know that their belief differs from reality in some significant way and are intentionally not analyzing their beliefs to bring them in line with reality - or are they somehow incapable of processing reality?

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Halx

It's compelling enough to watch a little longer to see if any Bush supporter would dare throw Opie a bone.

I try not to feed trolls.

[Glorp]

Opie-
As a Democratic candidate for office down here in Texas, I think that the answer to your question is best summed up by an e-mail I received from someone who, needless to say, seems a typical Bush supporter. I, am, of course, to the left of Chairman Mao...
The e-mail was, as is typical of a generation of self centered suburbanites "Mother of Three Asks a Question of You?" (as if the fact that she can reproduce makes her better than someone else) It follows...

"As a mother of 3 young children, I am scared of the
fact that a liberal might be representing my area.
How do you justify, as a liberal, trying to represent
us in a time when our nation is at war and our
homeland is secure only because we have a man in the
office who is willing to do the things that libs claim
is what is hurting us?"

It is as a result of these types of people, on either side, that we have what we have for government in this country. I'm coining a maxim now, and its going to be, "People who live by rhetoric should die by the sword."?

-Glorp

[Kalibah]

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

No. What I am saying is that, today, when any person is for the war because Iraq had WMDs and a connection to Al Qaeda and this is the reason they are supporting Candidate X, such a person is living in a fantasy and their decision is based on that fantasy.

When the numbers show that most (NOT ALL) Bush supporters likely fall into that category, I have to ask why.

Do they know that their belief differs from reality in some significant way and are intentionally not analyzing their beliefs to bring them in line with reality - or are they somehow incapable of processing reality?

I dont think its the actual War in Iraq and WMDs so much as the fear they represent... - They arent voting because Bush went to war with IRAQ and WMDs- but because he was willing to when all our, and British Intellegence said he had them. By " playing it safe" Kerry had/has many worried he wont act pro-activley.


So your confusing ( as far as I can tell) people voting BECAUSE he went to war with them voting BECAUSE HE WAS WILLING to go to war. When All our Itellegence points to WMDs and Kerry wouldnt have acted, that has many worried.

[OpieCunningham]

Interesting, Glorp.

I'm still wondering if this happens intentionally or not.

I believe it does.

My belief is that once it was said (a long time ago), it is their intention to deny the reality that demonstrates it was wrong. This is done because they have come to a determination (a long time ago) and they recognize that reviewing the reality around them would very likely affect their determination.

It's is a supreme form of stubbornness.

But I guess that does not really answer my initial question - perchance, this stubborness is their mental inability to accept reality.

I wonder if there is any way to combat this issue?

[OpieCunningham]

Originally Posted by Kalibah

So your confusing ( as far as I can tell) people voting BECAUSE he went to war with them voting BECAUSE HE WAS WILLING to go to war.

Yes, there is a possibility that I am confusing those two aspects.

But then why would anyone continue to believe that WMDs and an Al Qaeda connection existed?

Again, I find it hard to believe that their belief that these things existed is not greatly affecting their ability to judge reality and make a decision on who and what they support. Particularly as the people (Bush + Co) who either outright state or imply that their fantasy is reality are precisely the ones they are supporting (in most cases).

[Ustwo]

As far as income levels go, the least well-off are overwhelmingly Democratic: Those earning less than $20,000 a year call themselves Democratic 43 percent to 18 percent and those earning $20,000 to $30,000 Democratic 37 percent to 24 percent. Those making between $30,000 and $50,000 are Democrats, 34 percent to 30 percent, while those making between $50,000 and $75,000 are more Republican, 35 percent to 29 percent. People who make $75,000 or more are strongly GOP, 39 percent to 28 percent.

Because education levels track income levels, there's few surprises on how educational attainment affects partisanship. Just as with income, as educational levels go up, more people are inclined to be Republican.
Americans with less than a high-school education are overwhelmingly Democratic, 41 percent to 20 percent, while people who have just a high-school degree are Democrats, 34 percent to 28 percent. People with some college training tend to be Republicans, 32 percent to 31 percent while those with at least bachelor's degrees are Republican, 33 percent to 32 percent. I've seen other surveys on partisanship that show people with advanced degrees to be more Democratic than Republican, making those just bachelor's degrees more Republican if they're broken out of all those with some sort of a college degree.

Basically I find this holds true. Having been in institutions of higher learning for to long, I can verify the PhD thing as well. Most PhD types depend on government grants and don't have to produce the same way the private sector does. This type of thinking leans well to the democrats. In my last department, all of the part time doctors/teachers were Republicans, while all off the full timers without practices were Democrats. It was really fun there in 2000.

Because I know who the democrats and republicans are, Opie posting troll posts about republicans being stupid is just a waste of time.

[docbungle]

Originally Posted by Kalibah

When All our Itellegence points to WMDs and Kerry wouldnt have acted, that has many worried.

I think that is the point, actually. ALL of our intelligence did not point to WMDs. Bush pounced on the assumption they were there...and when they were not, he basically said..."Well, shit. At least we finally got rid of that bastard. Hey! Let's build a democracy."

...but his reasons for war...ALL OF THEM...were myths. Everyone has such a short memory.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by docbungle

I think that is the point, actually. ALL of our intelligence did not poit to WMDs. Bush pounced on the assumption they were there...and when they were not, he basically said..."Well, shit. At least we finally got rid of that bastard. Hey! Let's build a democracy."

...but his reasons for war...ALL OF THEM...were myths. Everyone has such a short memory.

You mean Saddam didn't violate the UN resolutions and was not a threat to the nations of the mideast?

Well golly gee.

[docbungle]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You mean Saddam didn't violate the UN resolutions and was not a threat to the nations of the mideast?

Well golly gee.

Like I said, a very short memory.

[wnker85]

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

Im sorry...but I have to say this....its threads like this that keep me from even wanting to participate in the political forums....

But, I am pretty sure that everyone sees that there are no WMDs in Iraq, even though many countries thought that there were. So, people still support Mr. Bush becuase he did not lie. He was misinformed and acted how he said he would.

Now that it turns out that our info was wrong and people against the President say that he was lying just so he could go to war. I would think that it is ignorance that they can not see that it was bad information that lead to this not an intent to lie.

[OpieCunningham]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Basically I find this holds true. Having been in institutions of higher learning for to long, I can verify the PhD thing as well. Most PhD types depend on government grants and don't have to produce the same way the private sector does. This type of thinking leans well to the democrats. In my last department, all of the part time doctors/teachers were Republicans, while all off the full timers without practices were Democrats. It was really fun there in 2000.

Because I know who the democrats and republicans are, Opie posting troll posts about republicans being stupid is just a waste of time.

Thank you for contributing absolutely nothing to the topic of this thread.

All the Bachelor degrees in the world will not turn fantasies into reality.

[OpieCunningham]

Originally Posted by wnker85

But, I am pretty sure that everyone sees that there are no WMDs in Iraq, even though many countries thought that there were. So, people still support Mr. Bush becuase he did not lie. He was misinformed and acted how he said he would.

Now that it turns out that our info was wrong and people against the President say that he was lying just so he could go to war. I would think that it is ignorance that they can not see that it was bad information that lead to this not an intent to lie.

And again - this is a thread about people who still do not even believe that he had information that was wrong.

I understand this is an unpleasant topic to discuss. It is hard to admit that most of the people who support your candidate do so because they believe in a fantasy. But it is not an impossible discussion to have, I believe, so the debate over whether we should have gone to war and/or whether Bush was right or wrong at the time is entirely beside the point of what we are dealing with today.

[docbungle]

Originally Posted by wnker85

Now that it turns out that our info was wrong and people against the President say that he was lying just so he could go to war. I would think that it is ignorance that they can not see that it was bad information that lead to this not an intent to lie.

But Bush won't even go so far as to say "Whoops."

[Willravel]

The bottom line is that people seem to have better things to do than care about what's going on politically in the world. People are too busy with work or family or school to pay attention to what's going on.

Outside of these people, you have the dissonant people. People who have savcraficed a lot with Bush in office and don't want to be wrong about what they put so much work into. Imagine you voted for Bush (some don't have to imagine, obviously). You've been protecting him since he stole the election. You vote for him, he loses, but steals the election and people askyou why. So you fight them on it. You didn't vote for the loser! So you start in a pattern of defending him. Next he starts going on vacation for years at a time. People call him lazy, you say he's doing his job. You start to have a vested interest in how people see Bush. Then 9/11 happens. Ww all want to hunt down the killers. You know your president won't let you down. So he goes after Ossama. Everyone is with you all of a sudden. Bush is going to get them! Then we attack Iraq. You are back in the position of defending Bush's actions. So now you can see a pattern of defending your decision back in 2000. Now here comes the election...time to fight with all of your might!

Why does this happen? Dissonance. If someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge*— they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than assimilation. You have vested interest in him being right, even if the facts stand in stark contrast.

That's my explaination, Opie. IMO.

Edit: I won't be happy with Bush until he apologizes to the people of Iraq, the people of France, Germany, Russia, and every other country that said, "Don't". He need to accept that he made a decision based on bad information, then address those who it hurt. People died because of the USs campaign. Innocent people. Based on a mistake. Apologize, unless you aren't sorry.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

Thank you for contributing absolutely nothing to the topic of this thread.

All the Bachelor degrees in the world will not turn fantasies into reality.

It got more then it deserves.

[dy156]

well, it had a bad title, but this idea could bring about some interesting discussion. I'll try my best to elevate this thing and even maybe allow some insight, too.

For every white-trash confederate flag waving moron who supports Bush, there is an equally out of touch treehugging peacenik hippie that supports Kerry. For every wealthy lawyer that supports kerry, there is an even wealthier doctor that supports Bush. For every brilliant professor that supports Kerry, there is a corporate vice president of something-or-other that supports Bush. For every billionaire that supports Kerry there are two millionaires that support Bush. You get the picture.
The reality of each of them varies quite dramatically from the reality of a different subset.
This report focused on one distinct issue -Iraq and it's impact on foriegn policy. (yes, I know it talked about several other matters, like treaties, etc.. but this was the focus) On that issue, Bush supporters were more likely to trust their president when he proclaimed that Iraq had wmd. They thought there was a link between the islamic bad guys that attacked America on September 11th and the Islamic bad guys that were in Iraq. The conclusions of this report are based on two false premises.
1. there was no link
While I think it is clear that Iraq did not have direct involvement with the 9/11 attackers, the ongoing problems there and the influx of non-Iraqi islamic people wanting to destroy Americans and violently create havoc might lead one to believe that there is, in fact a link. Lots of islamic fundamentalists in other nations want to cause as much harm to the United States as they can, while represing their own citizens. The taliban falls into this category, just as Iraq did. This does not even take into account the possibility that sometime after 9/11, if Iraq had had wmd, that they would try to help al Q by providing them access to those weapons.

2. as was stated earlier, the presumption that support of the war in iraq meant a belief that wmd existed in iraq. Personally, I thought Bush was using the possibility of WMD as justification, or an excuse, to enter war, and make it more palatable to the world to do so. It was a very good justification, if true, but I for one, and at least one other poster above would have supported an invasion of Iraq even if there had not been "proof" of WMD. An earlier poster derisively referred to the imperial Pax Americana. What people forget is that while Rome was the only power around, the first part of that phrase, Pax, Latin for peace, took place on a scale rarely seen before or since.
You had a counrty in Iraq who was a sworn enemy of the United States that had continuously broken the 1991 ceasefire by trying to shoot American and British planes; was completely in violation of several UN security counsel resolutions, not to mention abusing the oil-for-food program; and might have, as a nation, helped people who had directly attacked America; a chance to free an oppressed people that had been the victims of their own government on a terrible scale, a chance to eventually have an American alley in the most volitile region in the planet so we wouldn't have to rely on the Saudis for airbases and oil, and a chance to help set an example for other troublesome nations. (like Libya, that quickly gave up its wmd stockpile)

You could just as easily create a questionaire and ask Kerry supporters about economic issues like, have the bush tax cuts helped the rich and hurt the poor? Kerry supporters would likely say yes.

even usually liberal sources agree that that is not the case after studying the matter.
bush's tax cuts are unfair... to the rich --Slate magazine

The same thing could be done about global warming, or nationalized healthcare, or social security. What is the reality to some might seem very ignorant to others, and you can come up with "facts" to support your reality and make the other side appear, yes, "stupid."

[Kalibah]

Originally Posted by willravel

The bottom line is that people seem to have better things to do than care about what's going on politically in the world. People are too busy with work or family or school to pay attention to what's going on.

Outside of these people, you have the dissonant people. People who have savcraficed a lot with Bush in office and don't want to be wrong about what they put so much work into. Imagine you voted for Bush (some don't have to imagine, obviously). You've been protecting him since he stole the election. You vote for him, he loses, but steals the election and people askyou why.

That's my explaination, Opie. IMO.

Yes Bush stole the election


Just because Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton say he did doesnt mean its true

[Willravel]

Actually, he did. Just because Jebb Bush was the first person on the horn saying Bush won, and all the news networks followed in turn. Michael Moore may be an ass, but in Farenheight 9/11 he was right about the election.

[Kalibah]

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

And again - this is a thread about people who still do not even believe that he had information that was wrong.

I understand this is an unpleasant topic to discuss. It is hard to admit that most of the people who support your candidate do so because they believe in a fantasy. But it is not an impossible discussion to have, I believe, so the debate over whether we should have gone to war and/or whether Bush was right or wrong at the time is entirely beside the point of what we are dealing with today.

As I said I dont think people voted for bush because Bush went to war
Its because he was willing to go to war.

[Kalibah]

Originally Posted by willravel

Actually, he did. Just because Jebb Bush was the first person on the horn saying Bush won, and all the news networks followed in turn. Michael Moore may be an ass, but in Farenheight 9/11 he was right about the election.

Yes bring Michael Moore into it and the conversation goes down the pooper- there isnt enough lysol for this conversation- I asked for proof from amany Democrats and all refer to Michael Moore

If hes your example of a legitimate source- then I'd hate to see your pundits

[Willravel]

You failed to address any of my points, you just went after an insignificant refrence. Why not address the possibility that dissonence is a plausable explaination for people still thinking there are WMDs in Iraq?

[OpieCunningham]

Originally Posted by willravel

Outside of these people, you have the dissonant people.

It's impressive how much danger there is in that, even long-term.

If the desire to ignore reality due to the need to support your choice is so great, it is easy to see that even when the original choice is long gone (either in a couple of weeks or in 4 years), the need to ignore reality will continue in a cycle.

If, today, Person X does not agree with my candidate, in the future I will not agree with Person X.

I would consider that the opposite of logic - much like the current need to support a candidate due to a fantasy.

This is clearly a major problem that goes far beyond the costs of this war or this election. It is, in effect, a replacement of democracy with a dictatorship of ego: I must not be wrong, therefore I must base my decisions on never having been wrong.

How can such a cycle be broken?

[djtestudo]

Originally Posted by dy156

well, it had a bad title, but this idea could bring about some interesting discussion. I'll try my best to elevate this thing and even maybe allow some insight, too.

For every white-trash confederate flag waving moron who supports Bush, there is an equally out of touch treehugging peacenik hippie that supports Kerry. For every wealthy lawyer that supports kerry, there is an even wealthier doctor that supports Bush. For every brilliant professor that supports Kerry, there is a corporate vice president of something-or-other that supports Bush. For every billionaire that supports Kerry there are two millionaires that support Bush. You get the picture.
The reality of each of them varies quite dramatically from the reality of a different subset.
This report focused on one distinct issue -Iraq and it's impact on foriegn policy. (yes, I know it talked about several other matters, like treaties, etc.. but this was the focus) On that issue, Bush supporters were more likely to trust their president when he proclaimed that Iraq had wmd. They thought there was a link between the islamic bad guys that attacked America on September 11th and the Islamic bad guys that were in Iraq. The conclusions of this report are based on two false premises.
1. there was no link
While I think it is clear that Iraq did not have direct involvement with the 9/11 attackers, the ongoing problems there and the influx of non-Iraqi islamic people wanting to destroy Americans and violently create havoc might lead one to believe that there is, in fact a link. Lots of islamic fundamentalists in other nations want to cause as much harm to the United States as they can, while represing their own citizens. The taliban falls into this category, just as Iraq did. This does not even take into account the possibility that sometime after 9/11, if Iraq had had wmd, that they would try to help al Q by providing them access to those weapons.

2. as was stated earlier, the presumption that support of the war in iraq meant a belief that wmd existed in iraq. Personally, I thought Bush was using the possibility of WMD as justification, or an excuse, to enter war, and make it more palatable to the world to do so. It was a very good justification, if true, but I for one, and at least one other poster above would have supported an invasion of Iraq even if there had not been "proof" of WMD. An earlier poster derisively referred to the imperial Pax Americana. What people forget is that while Rome was the only power around, the first part of that phrase, Pax, Latin for peace, took place on a scale rarely seen before or since.
You had a counrty in Iraq who was a sworn enemy of the United States that had continuously broken the 1991 ceasefire by trying to shoot American and British planes; was completely in violation of several UN security counsel resolutions, not to mention abusing the oil-for-food program; and might have, as a nation, helped people who had directly attacked America; a chance to free an oppressed people that had been the victims of their own government on a terrible scale, a chance to eventually have an American alley in the most volitile region in the planet so we wouldn't have to rely on the Saudis for airbases and oil, and a chance to help set an example for other troublesome nations. (like Libya, that quickly gave up its wmd stockpile)

You could just as easily create a questionaire and ask Kerry supporters about economic issues like, have the bush tax cuts helped the rich and hurt the poor? Kerry supporters would likely say yes.

even usually liberal sources agree that that is not the case after studying the matter.
bush's tax cuts are unfair... to the rich --Slate magazine

The same thing could be done about global warming, or nationalized healthcare, or social security. What is the reality to some might seem very ignorant to others, and you can come up with "facts" to support your reality and make the other side appear, yes, "stupid."

Can we turn this into it's own thread and sticky it?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

It's impressive how much danger there is in that, even long-term.

If the desire to ignore reality due to the need to support your choice is so great, it is easy to see that even when the original choice is long gone (either in a couple of weeks or in 4 years), the need to ignore reality will continue in a cycle.

If, today, Person X does not agree with my candidate, in the future I will not agree with Person X.

I would consider that the opposite of logic - much like the current need to support a candidate due to a fantasy.

This is clearly a major problem that goes far beyond the costs of this war or this election. It is, in effect, a replacement of democracy with a dictatorship of ego: I must not be wrong, therefore I must base my decisions on never having been wrong.

How can such a cycle be broken?

How does one undo dissonence? This is Mass Dissonence. It is simple to undo dissonance with one or two people, but we are talking about a good percentage of the entire country. The only way for us to undo it is for Bush to alienate this group, which is virtually impossible. I'm all for electro-shock therepy, but that's probalby out of the question. Ther is not short term fix for this. Bush losing is the only way to fix this in reality.

[hunnychile]

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

Why exactly are we not allowed to talk about how a large number of people who believe in a known fantasy are affecting this election?

Better yet, Check out THIS Gem of information before You Vote...

http://nixtro.com/pentagon

[Ustwo]

I found this gem but I had to look into the raw data, they didn't put it in the report.

Q1. Compared to a year ago, do you think that the nation's economy has: 10/04 8/04
Gotten better.............................................................................................26% 31%
Bush supporters....................................................................................48 58
Kerry supporters....................................................................................7 10
is about the same..........................................................................................27 29
Bush supporters....................................................................................32 29
Kerry supporters...................................................................................22 28
Gotten worse................................................................................................46 40
Bush supporters....................................................................................20 13
Kerry supporters...................................................................................70 60

Now since the economy is obviously better, does this mean that most Kerry supporters are intentionally ignorant or unable to process reality?

Poll only covers the 'misconceptions' of the right, without the left. Did they ask any questions like 'Do Saddam's regiem produce mass graves?' or 'Did Saddam have missles prohibited by the UN?' Nope.

The one question on the economy which showed that Kerry supporters obviously don't get the news either....didn't make it.