Trump voters incapable of acknowledging a fact even when it is staring them in the face

[RavenSky]

-67% of Trump voters say that unemployment increased during the Obama administration, to only 20% who say it decreased.

-Only 41% of Trump voters say that the stock market went up during the Obama administration. 39% say it went down, and another 19% say they're not sure.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/polls/

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_120916.pdf

His supporters don't know and don't care about actual facts.

 

[Valjean]

They elected the right candidate , then.
On the CIA &al finding of Russian meddling in the election: "I think it's ridiculous. I think it's another excuse. I don't believe it -- I don't know why...."

 

[none]

what about this russian hack thing, indications are that russians did it and apparently the issue is what level it was conducted and that putin wasn't named or was named in the confidential analysis
how this plays out is trump knows the finding but can't say what they are because they are classified, seems most people are sitting quiet about the content that is classified
so either the information does say what level it came from and if that information is putin trump has to sit on it, a liar sitting on information that proves he won the election because putin leaked information
you know he's gotta have a good relationship with putin, because trump is an ass and if it is the case then he has to meet with putin under the pretenses of his election rhetoric not the actionable intelligence

your mileage may vary

 

[credoconsolans]

-67% of Trump voters say that unemployment increased during the Obama administration, to only 20% who say it decreased.

-Only 41% of Trump voters say that the stock market went up during the Obama administration. 39% say it went down, and another 19% say they're not sure.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/polls/

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_120916.pdf

His supporters don't know and don't care about actual facts.

That was made quite clear during his presidential run.

 

[Bomb#20]

-67% of Trump voters say that unemployment increased during the Obama administration, to only 20% who say it decreased.

His supporters don't know and don't care about actual facts.

So your theory is what? That Trump voters are too stupid to understand that people who have given up looking for work aren't fully human, and therefore when the government doesn't count them as unemployed, and is thus able to report a falling unemployment rate, it's correct?

 

[credoconsolans]

His supporters don't know and don't care about actual facts.

So your theory is what? That Trump voters are too stupid to understand that people who have given up looking for work aren't fully human, and therefore when the government doesn't count them as unemployed, and is thus able to report a falling unemployment rate, it's correct?

This is always the way unemployment has always been reported.

And of course, due to the aging baby boomers, how do they count when someone just retires?

 

[laughing dog]

So your theory is what? That Trump voters are too stupid to understand that people who have given up looking for work aren't fully human, and therefore when the government doesn't count them as unemployed, and is thus able to report a falling unemployment rate, it's correct?

This is always the way unemployment has always been reported.

And of course, due to the aging baby boomers, how do they count when someone just retires?

To be counted as part of the labor force, someone must either be employed or actively seeking employment. People who retire from their full time job and end up taking part time work somewhere else are therefore part of the labor force. People who retire and who do not work or seek work are not in the labor force.

 

[Elixir]

This is always the way unemployment has always been reported.

And of course, due to the aging baby boomers, how do they count when someone just retires?

To be counted as part of the labor force, someone must either be employed or actively seeking employment. People who retire from their full time job and end up taking part time work somewhere else are therefore part of the labor force. People who retire and who do not work or seek work are not in the labor force.

Accounting for those effects would probably compress the curves, but would not effect the temporal trendlines, assuming that the same metrics apply throughout the continuum.

 

[Bomb#20]

This is always the way unemployment has always been reported.

Indeed it is. So the question is, when some people take more mental note of the fact that when they look around they see more non-working people per working person than ever and see jobs harder to get than ever, and take less mental note of a government's reports about its own arbitrarily defined sub-category of the overall joblessness problem, why the bejesus would any rational observer take the impression those people form as evidence that they are incapable of acknowledging a fact even when it is staring them in the face and don't know and don't care about actual facts? It seems to me an observer who draws that conclusion should get the hell out of her echo chamber and find out what an actual fact looks like.

And of course, due to the aging baby boomers, how do they count when someone just retires?

To be counted as part of the labor force, someone must either be employed or actively seeking employment. People who retire from their full time job and end up taking part time work somewhere else are therefore part of the labor force. People who retire and who do not work or seek work are not in the labor force.

Accounting for those effects would probably compress the curves, but would not effect the temporal trendlines, assuming that the same metrics apply throughout the continuum.

That effect's compression of the curve is already taken into account. As the chart's legend says, "Participation Rate, 25-54 yrs". You can easily Google a chart of the employment rate that includes old people; it of course shows an even greater decline in the labor force participation rate.

[Anti-strawman disclaimer: None of this is intended to imply in any way that the rise in joblessness is Obama's fault.]

 

[RavenSky]

Indeed it is. So the question is, when some people take more mental note of the fact that when they look around they see more non-working people per working person than ever and see jobs harder to get than ever, and take less mental note of a government's reports about its own arbitrarily defined sub-category of the overall joblessness problem, why the bejesus would any rational observer take the impression those people form as evidence that they are incapable of acknowledging a fact even when it is staring them in the face and don't know and don't care about actual facts?

Because the FACT Trump voters refuse to acknowledge is that unemployment has gone down under the Obama administration. When measuring apples to apples, the FACT is that unemployment has gone down under the Obama administration. It doesn't really matter if you prefer to compare oranges to oranges, the FACT remains that unemployment has gone down under the Obama administration. FACTS are what Trump voters are apparently incapable of acknowledging.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I don't think this is at all limited to Trump supporters, although they may be at greater risk for it. Every day, I see deeper and deeper conflicts of interest on Trump's part, and the country seems to just collectively sigh and move on, not caring.

 

[Bomb#20]

Because the FACT Trump voters refuse to acknowledge is that unemployment has gone down under the Obama administration. When measuring apples to apples, the FACT is that unemployment has gone down under the Obama administration. It doesn't really matter if you prefer to compare oranges to oranges, the FACT remains that unemployment has gone down under the Obama administration.

Ravensky, let me draw your attention to four facts.

1. Telling me something is a fact three times does not make it a fact. Your use of proof-by-repetition doesn't mean you have a case.

2. If a we call a tail a leg, a dog has four legs. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one.

3. The circumstance that the government chooses to use the word "unemployment" to refer to a quantity it calculates by deliberately ignoring some categories of jobless people has no power to magically make others who don't choose to ignore all of those people when they use the word "unemployment" into people who are "incapable of acknowledging facts." Agreeing to speak and to think in terms of some government's Newspeak vocabulary is not one of the requirements for qualifying as a fact-acknowledging person. To imply that it is one of the requirements is illogical.

4. When you call "unemployment has gone down under the Obama administration" a FACT, you are playing a word game. You could say "The U3 rate has gone down under the Obama administration." That would be a fact. But pointing out that joblessness has increased under the Obama administration does not make a person guilty of denying that the U3 rate has gone down. When you make believe that it does -- when you treat "unemployment" and "the U3 rate" as synonyms, not in your own speech but in the speech of those you are condemning, you are committing an equivocation fallacy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

-67% of Trump voters say that unemployment increased during the Obama administration, to only 20% who say it decreased.

-Only 41% of Trump voters say that the stock market went up during the Obama administration. 39% say it went down, and another 19% say they're not sure.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/polls/

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_120916.pdf

His supporters don't know and don't care about actual facts.

In the presidential debates Trump made fun of Clinton for caring about the facts. This is not news.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

His supporters don't know and don't care about actual facts.

So your theory is what? That Trump voters are too stupid to understand that people who have given up looking for work aren't fully human, and therefore when the government doesn't count them as unemployed, and is thus able to report a falling unemployment rate, it's correct?

Yup... it was like that under Obama... and the W Bush before him.

Also umm... Baby Boomers are retiring which is a notable cause for fewer people in the workforce.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

link

"We had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the Electoral College. I guess the final numbers are now at 306," Trump said in an interview on Fox News Sunday.

A statement from his transition team on Friday, in response to reports of the CIA assessment, said, "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history."

This is what scares me the most. Even the most simple of things are being lied about. A "massive landslide victory"? Yes, he won... with 36 surplus electoral votes. That isn't a landslide, even if you ignore that it was only a total of 100,000 winning votes among three crucial states that gave him those electoral votes. One of the biggest EC victories in history? Johnson, Reagan... those were as whoopings. HW Bush's win in '88 was as close to a landslide without being one. Obama in '08 and '12 were a solid victories. The other thing of note, these people all won the popular vote.

We are entering a post-truth era. The W Administration wasn't good with truth, but the Trump Admin is almost Orwellian with how they handle truth. This is bad stuff. When someone lies about the small stuff, you can't trust them with anything.

 

[Playball40]

Yeah, because people don't stop looking for work EVER. You do know they didn't just magically change they way they report the unemployed to make Obama look good, right??

His supporters don't know and don't care about actual facts.

So your theory is what? That Trump voters are too stupid to understand that people who have given up looking for work aren't fully human, and therefore when the government doesn't count them as unemployed, and is thus able to report a falling unemployment rate, it's correct?

 

[Trausti]

All politics are local. The government can cook the statistics all it wants. But if you, your friend, or neighbor is out of work or are underemployed, that's what really matters. See Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Tarring people who vote different that you as stupid is just assploding arrogance.

 

[Elixir]

All politics are local. The government can cook the statistics all it wants.

Yeah, statistics that don't support RW nonsense must be "cooked" - evidence (or lack thereof) be damned!.

But if you, your friend, or neighbor is out of work or are underemployed, that's what really matters.

You, your friend or neighbor constitutes about 0.00164% of the workforce. That's NOT "what really matters".

Tarring people who vote different that you as stupid is just assploding arrogance.

When they give us such good reason, it's hard to resist.

 

[Trausti]

Tarring people who vote different that you as stupid is just assploding arrogance.

When they give us such good reason, it's hard to resist.

Well, then, I guess you're stupid. (Couldn't resist. )

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

All politics are local. The government can cook the statistics all it wants. But if you, your friend, or neighbor is out of work or are underemployed, that's what really matters. See Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Tarring people who vote different that you as stupid is just assploding arrogance.

The more ardent Trump supporters are stupid. The evangelicals that voted for him are stupid. This is verifiable.