10
   

Are the presidential election results real? Or simply a simulation?

 
 
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Mar, 2017 02:51 pm
@oristarA,
Pentagon and military 24.5 cents
Kickbacks to the Military and Industrial Complex 12.5 cents
US national debt interest for the Pentagon and military and Kickbacks to the Military and Industrial Complex 7.9 cents
Pensions for US war criminals and terrorists 4.5 cents
...
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2017 09:06 am
@camlok,
camlok wrote:

You really are quite the researcher, oristarA. You get an A and a gold STAR.


Thanks for the comment.

I am flattered. Wink
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2017 05:40 pm
@camlok,
You give an A and a gold star for copying memes? No wonder you are a 9-11 Truther.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2017 12:40 am

Young Americans: Most see Trump as illegitimate president

By LAURIE KELLMAN and EMILY SWANSON
Mar. 18, 2017 6:24 PM EDT

http://binaryapi.ap.org/84d4cea47e9d4df38f71aaf7085ce241/460x.jpg
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2017 03:10 am
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

You give an A and a gold star for copying memes? No wonder you are a 9-11 Truther.


There are obviously more reasons than this. For example, organizing information in an effective way to show that Trump has been making America gradually more insignificant than he has promised "Make America Great Again".
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2017 06:44 am
Stephen Hawking: I fear I may not be welcome in Donald Trump's US


Robert Booth (The Guardian)

http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BByp1cm.img?h=525&w=874&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=308&y=97

Stephen Hawking, the leading British physicist and cosmologist, has said he no longer feels welcome in the US under Donald Trump.

Prof Hawking is a recipient of the prestigious US Franklin medal for science and received the presidential medal of freedom from Barack Obama in 2009. Now he has spoken out about his fears for the country’s “definite swing to a rightwing, more authoritarian approach”.

“I would like to visit again and to talk to other scientists, but I fear that I may not be welcome,” he said in an interview with Good Morning Britain on Monday.

Related: Stephen Hawking: Jeremy Corbyn is a disaster for Labour

The 75-year-old Cambridge scientist said he was particularly concerned about Trump’s environment policy.

“He should replace Scott Pruitt at the Environment Protection Agency,” he said. “Climate change is one of the great dangers we face, and it’s one we can prevent. It affects America badly, so tackling it should win votes for his second term. God forbid.”

Hawking has previously described Trump as a demagogue.

“Trump was elected by people who felt disenfranchised by the governing elite in a revolt against globalisation,” he told ITV1’s breakfast programme. “His priority will be to satisfy his electorate, who are neither liberal nor that well informed.”

Hawking said, however, that he saw signs of hope for the world in the rise of women to powerful positions in public life, and he revealed his excitement at the possibility of sending tiny robots into space to investigate earth-like planets trillions of miles away.

Asked about the ascent of Theresa May, Nicola Sturgeon and Cressida Dick, the new Met police commissioner, he said: “If we factor in high-powered women in Europe as well, such as Angela Merkel, it seems we are witnessing a seismic shift for women to accede to high-level positions in politics and society.

“But there may still be a gap between those women achieving high public status and those in the private sector. I welcome these signs of women’s liberation.”

When asked whether he thought the Nasa space programme should be restarted following the discovery of new planets, Hawking said: “The recently discovered system of seven Earth-sized planets is 39 light years away. With current technology there is no way we can travel that far.

“The best we can envisage is robotic nanocraft pushed by giant lasers to 20% of the speed of light. These nanocraft weigh a few grams and would take about 240 years to reach their destination and send pictures back. It is feasible and is something that I am very excited about.”

On British politics, Hawking said he felt a “hard Brexit” should be resisted, with the UK retaining strong links with the EU and China. He also said that Labour, which he backed at the 2015 general election, would not win the next election under Jeremy Corbyn.

“He doesn’t come across as a strong leader, and he allowed the media to portray him as a leftwing extremist, which he’s not,” he said. “It’s no good having the right principles if you never get in power.”
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2017 11:29 am
@oristarA,
Just like Blathy, all you do is post meme's and articles.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2017 12:23 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

Just like Blathy, all you do is post meme's and articles.


Collect evidence first, give analysis next.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2017 12:25 pm
FEBRUARY 10, 2017

A Psychological Portrait of Donald Trump

by CESAR CHELALA

Last October, before he was elected President of the U.S., I, among others, put forward the hypothesis that Mr. Donald Trump was a narcissist. I based my interpretation on the fact that he fulfilled practically all the criteria included in the classification of narcissism established by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). This is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in many countries all over the world.

The symptoms of this syndrome include the following: Grandiosity; fantasies of power and personal attractiveness; self-perception of being unique; needing constant admiration form others; sense of entitlement; exploitation of others for personal gain; intensely envious of others and pompous and arrogant demeanor. His behavior at the time, which became even more evident since becoming President, only confirmed this hypothesis.

More recently, however, John D. Garner, a practicing psychotherapist who advised psychiatric residents at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, went a step further and stated that Trump has “malignant narcissism” which is different from narcissistic personality disorder and which is incurable. “We have seen enough public behavior by Donald Trump now that we can make this diagnosis indisputably,” says Garner.

Not everybody agrees with this assumption, however. Rep. Chuck Fleishmann, R-Tenn. states that Trump is “passionate” and “vocal” in his approach to the presidency. According to Fleishmann, “Many traditional politicians get elected with one persona and one set of values and rhetoric and then get here and then morph into something else,” which is not the case of Trump, he concludes.

Shrinks don’t generally analyze public figures. During Barry Goldwater’s 1964 run for the presidency, Fact magazine published a special issue titled “The Unconscious of a Conservative: A special issue on the mind of Barry Goldwater.” The article prompted the American Psychiatric Association to issue what it called the “Goldwater Rule” that says: “It is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination.”

Although many psychologists and psychiatrists accept that their work could never be done without direct contact with the subject of their analysis, there are enough manifestations of Trump’s public persona and character to allow for his psychological characterization, one that is of a deep concern for everyone.

In that regard, one could say that Trump’s psychological characteristics are consistent with a person with Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), which is characterized by a pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others. Also apparent in this disorder is a history of legal problems and of impulsive and aggressive behavior.

Individuals with this disorder generally have no compunction in exploiting others in harmful ways for their own gain and pleasure. They frequently manipulate and deceive other people through a façade of wit and superficial charm, or even through intimidation and violence.


What makes this disorder particularly dangerous is that among its other characteristics those who have it are often reckless and impulsive, and fail to consider the consequences of their actions. In addition, they are often aggressive and manifest a lopsided temper, lashing out with violence to what they perceive is a provocation.

Robert Caro, President Lyndon Johnson great biographer, said, “Although the cliché says that power always corrupts, what is seldom said…is that power always reveals.” Anyone who has observed President Trump’s actions since assuming the presidency cannot fail but notice his increasingly impulsive decisions, his notable frustration at not receiving the response that he expected and a failure to admit that he has been wrong or apologizing when harming others.

What we have is a situation where the most powerful person in the world is tainted by personality characteristics that can be of serious harm to world peace. The extent to which these harmful characteristics can be controlled may well decide the future of the world.


Dr. Cesar Chelala is a co-winner of the 1979 Overseas Press Club of America award for the article “Missing or Disappeared in Argentina: The Desperate Search for Thousands of Abducted Victims.”
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2017 08:36 am
@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

The Road to Impeachment


"Fake News Media" versus "Fake President"

Quote:

WSJ editorial: Most Americans may conclude Trump 'fake president'

By Eugene Scott, CNN

Updated 2:25 PM ET, Wed March 22, 2017
WSJ: Trump falsehoods erode his credibility

(CNN)President Donald Trump's repeated lack of "respect for the truth" puts him in jeopardy of being viewed as "a fake President," The Wall Street Journal editorial board says.

"Two months into his presidency, Gallup has Mr. Trump's approval rating at 39%. No doubt Mr. Trump considers that fake news, but if he doesn't show more respect for the truth, most Americans may conclude he's a fake President," reads the editorial, which appeared online Tuesday night.

"This week should be dominated by the smooth political sailing for Mr. Trump's Supreme Court nominee and the progress of health-care reform on Capitol Hill," the editorial said. "These are historic events, and success will show he can deliver on his promises. But instead, the week has been dominated by the news that he was repudiated by his own FBI director."

While the Journal's editorial board was no friend of Trump during much of the 2016 campaign, the strong language in the editorial is particularly notable given the board's typically conservative outlook and the fact that the Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, with whom Trump has had a long and complicated relationship. Murdoch harshly criticized Trump in the wake of his 2015 putdown of Sen. John McCain but has gradually warmed up to the businessman-turned-President.

The editorial also slammed Trump for refusing to back off his administration's unsubstantiated allegations that President Barack Obama ordered the wiretapping of Trump Tower. Multiple lawmakers, including Republicans, have called on Trump to apologize to Obama for making the claim without providing any evidence.

"He has offered no evidence for his claim, and a parade of intelligence officials, senior Republicans and Democrats have since said they have seen no such evidence," the editorial board wrote. "Yet the President clings to his assertion like a drunk to an empty gin bottle, rolling out his press spokesman to make more dubious claims."

Asked about the editorial on CNN's "New Day" Wednesday morning, Texas Rep. Pete Sessions said Trump's unverified allegations do hurt his credibility.

"It does hurt," he said. "It hurts a lot not only for my party but for people to have a sobering look at what others are saying."

"I can look at the camera and tell you that we're going to do better. Notwithstanding where the President is with The Wall Street Journal, the American people want and need a better health care bill now and I'm going to help that," Sessions added.

0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2017 02:19 am
Scientific American:

How the Science of "Blue Lies" May Explain Trump's Support

They’re a very particular form of deception that can build solidarity within groups

By Jeremy Adam Smith on March 24, 2017

Donald Trump tells lies.

His deceptions and misleading statements are easy to unmask. In the latest example—after hundreds of well-documented lies—FBI director James Comey told Congress this week that there is “no information that supports” Trump’s claim that President Obama tapped his phone.

But Trump’s political path presents a paradox. Far from slowing his momentum, his deceit seemed only to strengthen his support through the primary and national election. Now, every time a lie is exposed, his support among Republicans doesn’t seem to waver very much. In the wake of the Comey revelations, his average approval rating held at 40 percent.

This has led many people to ask themselves: How does the former reality-TV star get away with it? How can he tell so many lies and still win support from many Americans?

Journalists and researchers have suggested many answers, from hyper-biased, segmented media to simple ignorance on the part of GOP voters. But there is another explanation that no one seems to have entertained. It is that Trump is telling “blue” lies—a psychologist’s term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.

Children start to tell selfish lies at about age three, as they discover adults cannot read their minds: I didn’t steal that toy, Daddy said I could, He hit me first. At around age seven, they begin to tell white lies motivated by feelings of empathy and compassion: That’s a good drawing, I love socks for Christmas, You’re funny.

Blue lies are a different category altogether, simultaneously selfish and beneficial to others—but only to those who belong to your group. As University of Toronto psychologist Kang Lee explains, blue lies fall in between generous white lies and selfish “black” ones. “You can tell a blue lie against another group,” he says, which makes it simultaneously selfless and self-serving. “For example, you can lie about your team's cheating in a game, which is antisocial, but helps your team.”

In a 2008 study of seven, nine, and 11-year-old children—the first of its kind—Lee and colleagues found that children become more likely to endorse and tell blue lies as they grow older. For example, given an opportunity to lie to an interviewer about rule-breaking in the selection process of a school chess team, many were quite willing to do so, older kids more than younger ones. The children telling this lie didn’t stand to selfishly benefit; they were doing it on behalf of their school. This line of research finds that black lies drive people apart, white lies draw them together, and blue lies pull some people together while driving others away.

Around the world, children grow up hearing stories of heroes who engage in deception and violence on behalf of their in-groups. In Star Wars, for example, Princess Leia lies about the location of the “secret rebel base.” In the Harry Potter novels (spoiler alert!), the entire life of double-agent Severus Snape is a lie, albeit a “blue” one, in the service of something bigger than himself.

That explains why most Americans seem to accept that our intelligence agencies lie in the interests of national security, and we laud our spies as heroes. From this perspective, blue lies are weapons in intergroup conflict. As Swedish philosopher Sissela Bok once said, “Deceit and violence—these are the two forms of deliberate assault on human beings.” Lying and bloodshed are often framed as crimes when committed inside a group—but as virtues in a state of war.

This research—and those stories—highlight a difficult truth about our species: We are intensely social creatures, but we’re prone to divide ourselves into competitive groups, largely for the purpose of allocating resources. People can be prosocial—compassionate, empathic, generous, honest—in their groups, and aggressively antisocial toward out-groups. When we divide people into groups, we open the door to competition, dehumanization, violence—and socially sanctioned deceit.

“People condone lying against enemy nations, and since many people now see those on the other side of American politics as enemies, they may feel that lies, when they recognize them, are appropriate means of warfare,” says George Edwards, a Texas A&M political scientist and one of the country’s leading scholars of the presidency.

If we see Trump’s lies not as failures of character but rather as weapons of war, then we can come to see why his supporters might see him as an effective leader. From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump’s campaign and presidency.

Research by Alexander George Theodoridis, Arlie Hochschild, Katherine J. Cramer, Maurice Schweitzer, and others have found that this kind of lying seems to thrive in an atmosphere of anger, resentment, and hyper-polarization. Party identification is so strong that criticism of the party feels like a threat to the self, which triggers a host of defensive psychological mechanisms.

For millions and millions of Americans, climate change is a hoax, Hillary Clinton ran a sex ring out of a pizza parlor, and immigrants cause crime. Whether they truly believe those falsehoods or not is debatable—and possibly irrelevant. The research to date suggests that they see those lies as useful weapons in a tribal us-against-them competition that pits the “real America” against those who would destroy it.

It’s in blue lies that the best and worst in humanity can come together. They reveal our loyalty, our ability to cooperate, our capacity to care about the people around us and to trust them. At the same time, blue lies display our predisposition to hate and dehumanize outsiders, and our tendency to delude ourselves.

This hints at the solution, which starts with the idea that we must appeal to the best in each other. While that may sound awfully idealistic, the applications of that insight are very concrete. In a new paper in the journal Advances in Political Psychology, D.J. Flynn and Brendan Nyhan, both of Dartmouth College, along with Jason Reifler, summarize everything science knows about “false and unsupported beliefs about politics.”

They recommend a cluster of prosaic techniques, such as presenting information as imagery or graphics, instead of text. The best combination appears to be graphics with stories. But this runs up against another scientific insight, one that will be frustrating to those who would oppose Trump’s lies: Who tells the story matters. Study after study shows that people are much more likely to be convinced of a fact when it “originates from ideologically sympathetic sources,” as the paper says—and it helps a lot if those sources look and sound like them.

In short, it is white conservatives who must call out Trump’s lies, if they are to be stopped.

What can the rest of us do in the meantime? We must make accuracy a goal, even when the facts don’t fit our emotional reality. We start by verifying information, seeking out different and competing sources, cultivating a diverse social network, sharing information with integrity—and admitting when we fail. That’s easy. But the most important and difficult thing we can do right now, suggests this line of research, is to put some critical distance between us and our groups—and so lessen the pressure to go along with the herd.

Donald Trump lies, yes, but that doesn’t mean rest of us, his supporters included, need to follow his example.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2017 03:21 am
@oristarA,

Quote:
Collect evidence first, give analysis next.


The voters did just that with HRC.

That's why we're now discussing this president.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Mar, 2017 06:03 am
The Master of Blue Lies is happily driving to the cliff of impeachment:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7vKDCoVAAAfDUM.jpg
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 May, 2017 09:23 pm
Today's feature article in New Scientist mentions Alfred Russel Wallace and Stephen Hawking in the first place. Hawking's influence continues, refuting the bullshit that he falls back into obscurity.

Odds on: Five scientific theories decided by wager
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2017 09:58 am
A wise move:Congress taking back power from Trump on national security

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/24/2017 at 05:17:24