49% Of GOP Think A Non Existent Group Stole The Election

[Patsfan56]

My point about the poll is that I don't believe that 49% of Republicans believe the election was stolen, any more than I believe that 50% of Democrats are truthers. I don't even think 50% of any group are truthers. I don't even think 50% of truthers are truthers.

Statistically speaking about truthers, my brain just liquified just a tiny bit having read this.

[cabernetluver]

Statistically speaking about truthers, my brain just liquified just a tiny bit having read this.

The problem with the truther designation, from my understanding of it, is that there are degrees of "truther". There are those hard core nutburgers, who think it was a conspiracy, with active participation, down to, and including, placement of explosive devices in the buildings. There are those, slightly less nutburgers who think it was actual knowledge of the specific event, and made the active decision to not do anything to stop it. A third group, who are still considered truthers are those who think that the administration knew about the event, but no specific knowledge as to time and date. A fourth group is those who believe the administration knew something was going to happen somewhere, at or around the date. Finally, there are those who believe the administration was told about Al Qaeda, and made the decision not to pay enough attention to them.

Compare that with the binary decision, ACORN did steal the election. That is a simple yes or no.

[flips333]

My point about the poll is that I don't believe that 49% of Republicans believe the election was stolen, any more than I believe that 50% of Democrats are truthers. I don't even think 50% of any group are truthers. I don't even think 50% of truthers are truthers.

I highly doubt that you could find any poll that would state that 50% of democrats believe that the US governement was directly responsible for 9/11. Come on.

[Nymfan87]

The problem with the truther designation, from my understanding of it, is that there are degrees of "truther". There are those hard core nutburgers, who think it was a conspiracy, with active participation, down to, and including, placement of explosive devices in the buildings. There are those, slightly less nutburgers who think it was actual knowledge of the specific event, and made the active decision to not do anything to stop it. A third group, who are still considered truthers are those who think that the administration knew about the event, but no specific knowledge as to time and date. A fourth group is those who believe the administration knew something was going to happen somewhere, at or around the date. Finally, there are those who believe the administration was told about Al Qaeda, and made the decision not to pay enough attention to them.

Compare that with the binary decision, ACORN did steal the election. That is a simple yes or no.

I'm a different kind of truther: I believe people in the government indirectly allowed 9/11 to happen not through malicious intent, but incompetence. And there's no truth quite like incompetence in government.

[Labgrownmangoat]

No. I am sure, because I watched it happen.


No. I am making two separate points.

My point about the media paying attention to nuts has to do with the Todd Akin "legitimate rape" type stuff. When a Republican says something nutty, the media asks every single Republican to answer for it.

So the people that keep electing Akin to Congress are doing so because they don't know his "nuts" views, because they do know them and agree, or for some other reason? Are the media responsible for Republican votes as well as Republican opinions now?

[dbroncos78087]

No. I am sure, because I watched it happen.


No. I am making two separate points.

My point about the media paying attention to nuts has to do with the Todd Akin "legitimate rape" type stuff. When a Republican says something nutty, the media asks every single Republican to answer for it.

I think that might be due to some type of confirmation bias, or maybe some type of in-group/out-group type thing.

My point about the poll is that I don't believe that 49% of Republicans believe the election was stolen, any more than I believe that 50% of Democrats are truthers. I don't even think 50% of any group are truthers. I don't even think 50% of truthers are truthers.

Until you can present any evidence that Democrats are truthers, especially in those large of numbers, they are not equatable.

[gcoll]

The problem with the truther designation, from my understanding of it, is that there are degrees of "truther". There are those hard core nutburgers, who think it was a conspiracy, with active participation, down to, and including, placement of explosive devices in the buildings. There are those, slightly less nutburgers who think it was actual knowledge of the specific event, and made the active decision to not do anything to stop it. A third group, who are still considered truthers are those who think that the administration knew about the event, but no specific knowledge as to time and date. A fourth group is those who believe the administration knew something was going to happen somewhere, at or around the date. Finally, there are those who believe the administration was told about Al Qaeda, and made the decision not to pay enough attention to them.

Compare that with the binary decision, ACORN did steal the election. That is a simple yes or no.

"How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?"

That was the question. That is a conspiracy theory.

So the people that keep electing Akin to Congress are doing so because they don't know his "nuts" views, because they do know them and agree, or for some other reason? Are the media responsible for Republican votes as well as Republican opinions now?

Probably a combination of the three reasons you present.

[GasMan]

people will find any excuse to rabble rouse, that is nothing new, but the underlying principle of the OWS movement was by far the most insiteful examination of the hypocrasy of the plutocrasy that this country has ever mounted.

The market is based on risk.
that is a cornerstone of the "greatness" of the "free market" , cant be picking winners or losers right Rs?
so what did they do? they went High risk and lost, and then blackmailed the american people to absorb their loses.
See ,only we should be bound by any rules.
This is the incredible lie that you "free market" Capitalists refuse to acknowledge.
The market isnt free, and entities dealing within in the market are not bound by rules and engage in fraud ,trickery, larceny,bribery, insider trading,all day long.

when you support the market, all you are really saying is one day YOU TOO hope to gain access to the "platinum Club" and be able to lie, cheat and steal without reprisal too.

This is untrue, real free market capitalists don't support government bailouts. And many of us who support a free market economy accept reasonable regulation like Sherman Anti-trust and Glass-Steagll to name a few.

[cabernetluver]

"How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?"

That was the question. That is a conspiracy theory.

I could read the second question, in context of warning we know did take place, and were not acted upon, and come up with a non conspiracy. For giggles, I Googled this question...Who warned of 9/11.

I got hits from the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC News, and more. I think these hits could fall into the "truther" answer to that question. Or, maybe I am just missing the mark.

[gcoll]

You are ignoring the "because."

That's the part that crosses the line from just negligent to purposeful. What you're defending is the idea that they were negligent.

But that's not what the question talks about. The question is a straight truther question. There are two broad categories of truther: "LIHOP" and "MIHOP" standing for "let it happen on purpose" and "made it happen on purpose."

That's what the question asks. If you fall into either of those categories, you are a truther.

If you are just saying that the Bush administration did not take the threat seriously enough; you aren't a conspiracy theorist. But I think you are engaging in a little bit of hindsight bias. That "Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States" memo is a good example of hindsight bias.

[Patsfan56]

You are ignoring the "because."

That's the part that crosses the line from just negligent to purposeful. What you're defending is the idea that they were negligent.

But that's not what the question talks about. The question is a straight truther question. There are two broad categories of truther: "LIHOP" and "MIHOP" standing for "let it happen on purpose" and "made it happen on purpose."

That's what the question asks. If you fall into either of those categories, you are a truther.

If you are just saying that the Bush administration did not take the threat seriously enough; you aren't a conspiracy theorist. But I think you are engaging in a little bit of hindsight bias. That "Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States" memo is a good example of hindsight bias.

Oh boy.

My apologies, fellas. I was simply joking about the mental hurdle the triple statistical breakdown was making me go through. I was so tired, and I literally stoppped for 10 minutes trying to fully follow and understand the concept. I was just joking about my lack of ability to follow the mental math.

I did not intend to derail the thread, honestly. Sorry about that.

[cabernetluver]

Oh boy.

My apologies, fellas. I was simply joking about the mental hurdle the triple statistical breakdown was making me go through. I was so tired, and I literally stoppped for 10 minutes trying to fully follow and understand the concept. I was just joking about my lack of ability to follow the mental math.

I did not intend to derail the thread, honestly. Sorry about that.

No problem here. I let myself get derailed. My fault.

[dbroncos78087]

I'm still stunned that there was discussion (diversion) of the actual poll and the discussion shifted to Democrats and birthers.

[natepro]

I wonder how other, less partisan conspiracy theories would turn out when broken down by party. Are Democrats or Republicans, for example, more likely to believe in the moon landing hoax theory? Would it be split evenly? I have no idea, I'm actually asking here, but I'm wondering if there is something about one party or the other that might attract people of a mindset that is more accepting of conspiracy theories.

[The Schmooze]

I'm still stunned that there was discussion (diversion) of the actual poll and the discussion shifted to Democrats and birthers.

Often in political debates, the discussion becomes "well your side does it too!" and then people go back and forth to try and one-up one another on why the other's party is worse.

I think we can all agree that polls are often skewed, and peoples' interpretation of polsl are that they will agree with polls that represent their POV(or fit in line with their expected outcomes), and reject the validity of all others that do not.