YJ02

I have nothing to say about Obama, only about the military aid delivered to ukraine during his administration. and the very easy to find facts are that administration did not release any lethal aid to Ukraine. this can be found at this link, originally provided by iNOW: https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2019/oct/25/matt-gaetz/matt-gaetz-says-obama-permanently-stopped-military/ despite the times that congress, with some democratic support, had authorized lethal aid as part of a larger aid package, Obama did not authorize lethal aid to be shipped and another, with the same info, from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-ukraine-military-aid-sheets-pillows-fact-check/index.html yes, google is handy, however, from your post you can see you are citing a wiki entry on "non-lethal weapon" . and from the items you listed, I don't know if any were ever included in shipments to Ukraine. Counter-Mortar and Counter Artillery (also referred to as Firefinder by the US army and marines ) radar systems are not lethal. They are not weapons systems, they are support systems. The radars and the positioning and trajectory data they provide are just apart of a counter battery set, which includes friendly mortars, artillery or air to ground systems to deliver a lethal strike. None of these systems are capable of what something like the IDF's "iron dome' system are. that is they cannot both locate and intercept projectiles the first systems were the lightweight and very limited range AN/TPQ-50. In either 2015 or 16, the Obama admin authorized and delivered the longer range and much more capable AN/TPQ-36 and AN/TPQ-37 radars. For those who use or work with them, the Q-36 is mainly employed as a counter mortar, and the Q-37 as a counter artillery (tube and rocket). With the distinction not being one of capability but in range. Since artillery is fired from a greater range then mortars, the Q-37 is considered best used for counter artillery. In the US army, the Q-50 is typically deployed with front line or near front line units-like Infantry, Armor and their support and the q-36 AND q-37's are deployed further back with artillery and rocket (MLRS) units (citation Me,Myself, I) therefore, all of these FIREFINDER systems are non lethal aid. https://www.wsj.com/articles/pentagon-prepares-to-send-better-radar-to-ukraine-1437596928 https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/antpq-50-lightweight-counter-mortar-radar-lcmr/ https://www.armyrecognition.com/united_states_military_equipment_uk/an/tpq-36_counter_artillery_radar_firefinder_weapon_locating_system_technical_data_sheet_11511153.html https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/an-tpq-37.htm you make it sound as if someone just made that up it is a long standing characterization, part of a binary system of 'lethal' and 'non lethal' similar to the US Military and its designations to classify field units (and MOS''s) as combat, combat support and combat service support. yes all are manned by soldiers or marines but not all have the mission of direct combat. this is sourced in my OP for this thread --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- another issue, which also brings up many other possible questions-for other threads- of why are we giving so much military gear to ukraine when it has its own weapons industry? it is a near farcical situation--we hear reports of UKR army that go something like- " helpless in the field against the might of Russian tanks; UKR units have very little armor of their own" that they can't survive with EU and US selling and gifting of weapons. But they can supply themselves. They simply do not have the will to nationalize the industry--therefore are they really that frightened? More corruption? Are US taxpayer's money going to the UKR govt to buy over priced gear from Ukrainian manufacturers? A Ukrainian, US/EU funded jobs program? NEWSWEEK Article from 2017 https://www.newsweek.com/ukraines-new-tank-can-take-russias-best-kiev-cant-afford-it-665972 they even make their own counter-battery radar systems, comparable to the q-37's we are giving them https://www.janes.com/article/87863/ukrainian-1l220uk-counter-battery-radar-completes-field-tests

While I appreciate your civility, I must point out that I have been talking about lethal aide, and in the articles I linked to prior as well as the article iNOW linked to above (ref Matt Gaetz), my statement on no lethal aide by Obama admin is verified. The lethal aide that Trump withheld, and referenced in the above linked articles and mentioned repeatedly in impeachment testimony, is the Javelin anti tank missile system. The javelin is a direct fire weapon to be used against armored vehicles. the majority of the remainder of the aide package is for non combat systems. It is for combat support and combat service support systems. there are a few small arms weapons though: "The Defense Department’s tranche was set to include sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, counter-artillery radars, electronic warfare detection and secure communications, night vision equipment, and military medical supplies and treatment. The department previously included counter-sniper equipment, Humvees and tactical drones as well" from:.https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/25/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-us-aid-package-to-ukraine-that-trump-delayed/ And as I can find no specific listing online of the numbers of Ukrainian battle deaths this summer during the time of aide being withheld, per this article (also referenced in yesterdays hearings) it would appear that since the nature of the war has become mainly trench warfare, most of the deaths are a result of indirect fire. The Ukrainians have long been in receipt and trained on counter battery radar systems. These systems warn troops f incoming indirect fire and also give a location of the weapon system that fired them so that counter battery fire can be made. The Ukrainians also have plenty of artillery to do this with. We do not possess anything like the Israeli 'Iron Dome' system which can detect and intercept artillery and mortars, to give them, so the UKR Army had everything needed to try to prevent deaths in their possession PRIOR to the nitwits July 25th phone call. So, the withheld Javelins would have been in no way useful to prevent any Ukrainian deaths as it is a anti armor weapon, and the two articles I have linked indicate that the Separatists have withdrawn their armor from the battle field to put them out of range of the javelins already received prior to this summer, and the other anti tank weapons the Ukr Army has. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-10-16/as-ukraine-waited-for-u-s-assistance-death-toll-on-eastern-front-line-grew This is all pertinent to the impeachment as this aide is one half of the 'quid pro quo' Trump is charged with. The repeated mention of Obama (I mean he was the President when this war started) and his admin's refusal to send lethal aide as well as the non lethal aide he did authorize (like the counter battery radar systems I mentioned) is important to show that any deaths that occurred, during the summer and TRUMP'S EMBARGO, Would have not been prevented by the aide package withheld but rather by the material ALREADY being used by the UKR Army. So the impeachment argument of Trumps being responsible for deaths is a very hollow one, and most likely, no deaths can be directly linked to non receipt of anything in the aide package and definitely not the much talked about by democrats, Javelin missile system. Additionally in the la times article, a UKR army spokeperson states that as of October, none of the aide package-released in September, had yet arrived to field units. Therefore, even if it was not held up in July, it most likely still would not have arrived to field units until August or September. That is, in all trust that no Ukrainian Oligarch or right wing, UKR neo nazi group (who have their own militias at the front) stole it in transit. "Weapons"-- when supplying an army in combat, do you know of any that are not lethal? Besides the quote of my post below, I also mentioned 'lethal' and ;'lethality' in my post where I quoted the 4 different sources to include President # 44's news conference, where the question of lethal vs non lethal aide is brought up by a reporter and answer by the President. So yes, it was mentioned by me before definition of lethal vs non lethal. weapons are in the lethal category: https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/08/02/what-exactly-is-non-lethal-aid/

This from the same article you linked, para's 16 and 17...as i stated before, and verified by the article YOU linked,The Obama admin provided NO LETHAL AIDE "But experts told us that the equipment ultimately provided during Obama’s tenure was non-lethal aid. "The first lethal deliveries came from Trump," said Jim Townsend, deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO Policy during the Obama administration. "

there is no lie. i gave you links to the New York times, the official Obama records, USA today and CNN, where are these lies you speak of? The simple fact is the Obama admin gave no weapons assistance of any type. The same weapons that the Dems are now using as a key point in their arguments. A few years ago, most Dems agreed with President Obama that weapons to Ukraine would escalate the situation.They gave no weapons, since then, the situation has escalated and stagnated. The war rages on. Their plans of sanctions did not have the desired effect. But now that Trump is President, somehow it has become crucial to the very survival of Ukraine that they had to wait a few more weeks to get the weapons they should of had 5 years ago? Yeah, that makes sense.. only to someone blinded by bias and "Trumpitis". There is no 'whataboutism', these facts I cited are essential to the discussion. The democrats have made it that way by making these arms deliveries, and their delay, a cornerstone of the impeachment. This is precisely what I have meant when I have said that our political status is so polarized that partisanship has made people incapable of telling the truth or accepting that sometimes "your guy" makes mistakes and sometimes the opposing side does something right that should be acknowledged. But the current political health of our nation has no room to tolerate honesty or even keeled discourse. This is going to a Senate trial, and the democrats seem to have not realized what problems they will make for themselves by doing so. If McConnell goes along with the WH and does a long trial, with many witnesses, the democrats may become exposed to issues they do not want made public. Also, their 4 Senators running for President will have to leave their campaigns in Iowa and maybe New Hampshire and more places. Instead of campaigning they will be required to sit in the Senate chamber while their dem opponents get all the attention on the campaign. And if the republicans call the Bidens..well, I doubt they will even show up. Look at what partisanship has gotten you and America; stress, anger, arguments. Partisanship and its drive to the extremes gave us Trump. Not worth it. The voters of America need to wake up and reject these parties and their perceived entitlement to their dysfunctional 'duopoly' on Washington DC. The Constitution neither guarantees nor gives rights to political parties to exist, but to voters and their rights instead.

and for those,finding some shiny and slickly produced Yt video that "explains it all", is all they seemingly want to know and it would be easy to just write off those people who choose this but what is the critical mass of people we can allow to believe what they want and ignore known science? How many people can we allow to get into the workforce, or become otherwise educated ( - science of course) and then become the next generation of parents, economy shapers, public policy makers, authority figures and all manner else of what it takes to keep our economy and society running? Or, to use an example from film, how long can we just ignore these people before we began to finalize our transformation into one that was shown in the film IDIOCRACY? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3boy_tLWeqA

sure, ok, I was just trying to communicate to you that I understand you are pretty fired up about this, and I do not take anything personal as a result. no one should. your above comment on the passionate margins is what I was speaking to. The two parties count on their passionate margins--their base- to keep them in power. Everyone else? Well they just want them placated and would just as well prefer they stayed home and not vote. ------------------------------ and now, I would like to drop this in related to the impeachment. Only after last nights dog and pony show and the one democrat who made the comment of "because of Trump withholding the military aide, (13) Ukrainian soldiers died" Now that is pure and utter distortion. Back in 2015 under Obama, Congress had passed funding for Ukraine. It included lethal and non lethal aid. It had some bi partisan support. President Obama did not want to include lethal aid-like ammo for weapons the Ukrainians already had, and for weapons like javelin anti tank missiles. He only authorized the non lethal which including items like Kevlar helmets and body armor, first aid and other medical supplies, generators -the stuff that an army requires in the field. So, how many Ukrainians died because Obama withheld the aid, the means that they needed to defend themselves? Back then, the war was far more active, they really could have used more ammo and a excellent anti tank missile system. But democrats on Obama's side said things like "it wouldn't matter how much we give them, will they be able to hold off the attacks?" and, Obama saw no way any amount of lethal military aid would help. He saw that there would only be a non military solution, and the Democrats were happy with that, then! Now, they are for war? from below linked NYT article -"That has set the stage for a pitched debate between lawmakers and the White House that could well undermine Mr. Obama’s repeated assertion that the United States sees no military solution to the conflict in Ukraine." So now, the dems want to give the Ukrainians lethal aid, like those Anti tank systems; now they are for it where they were once against the very same thing. And, they are using the fact that aid was held up by Trump as the reason for the deaths of Ukrainians. And, the way words were used. In this article you can see where back then, the administration and the press called the rebels "Russian backed separatists" .But now, when Trump is President they are "Russian (army) invaders" https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/world/europe/defying-obama-many-in-congress-press-to-arm-ukraine.html?fbclid=IwAR3pepN_9lv4Bec4Z3d4TONq1_FjIX5pEiOatbCZsKZMKsFsIi__qcLet-U from President Obama's press conference after the shoot down of Malaysian airlines flight. Notice how he says that Ukraine is "better armed then the separatists" (note- not Russian invaders): Q So far sanctions haven’t stopped Vladimir Putin. Are sanctions going to be enough? And are you considering lethal aid for Ukraine? THE PRESIDENT: Well, keep in mind, the issue at this point is not the Ukrainian capacity to outfight separatists. They are better armed than the separatists. The issue is how do we prevent bloodshed in eastern Ukraine. We’re trying to avoid that. And the main tool that we have to influence Russian behavior at this point is the impact that it’s having on its economy. The fact that we’ve seen Europeans who have real, legitimate economic concerns in severing certain ties with Russia stepping up the way they have today I think is an indication of both the waning patience that Europe has with nice words from President Putin that are not matched by actions, but also a recognition as a consequence of what happened with the Malaysian Airlines flight that it is hard to avoid the spillover of what’s happening in Ukraine impacting Europeans across the board. And so we think that the combination of stronger U.S. and European sanctions is going to have a greater impact on the Russian economy than we’ve seen so far. Obviously, we can't in the end make President Putin see more clearly. Ultimately that's something that President Putin has to do by -- on his own. But what we can do is make sure that we’ve increased the costs for actions that I think are not only destructive to Ukraine but ultimately are going to be destructive to Russia, as well. All right. Guys, I’ve got to get going. END https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/07/29/statement-president-ukraine More on Obama's refusal on providing lethal aid: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/18/ukraine-poroshenko-speaks-to-congress/15819211/ https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-ukraine-military-aid-sheets-pillows-fact-check/index.html All those years under attack and the dems did not feel it necessary to send Ukraine weapons until Trump took office? interesting, more so that no they have added this to their reasoning for impeachment

Not trying to 'break in' to your discussion, but I do not think you are unreasonable You are perfectly reasonable and passion is desired when speaking on things that one is so concerned about My biggest concern is that there are too many people in America (or any place) that have no passion on political issues; they just take what they are handed/told to think and move on the lack of passion and interest, IMO, is what those in both parties are counting on. Sure, they want your vote, but then they want you to go away and let them be in their comfortable 'political class' way of living and remain loyal to them no matter what.

this is most definitely a big part, but many of these are not monetized and if people wanted to just make money, there are many other ways to make monetized vids--like those cat videos also, many of the ppl- like the flat earthers, will spend thousands or more in making their videos and the "experiments" they do like the ones using laser distance measurement to try and show no curvature I was a surveyor for 20 yrs and I know how much these devices cost,, definitely not cheap. (and all of them are done so wrong from a surveyors standpoint, they are evidence of nothing save incompetence in using said expensive gear) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow! thanks for all the responses I am glad that you all took the time to respond. I know that many in the hard science fields sometimes do not/will not participate in a discussion like this. I truly do appreciate it. << Especially after my ruffling so many feathers elsewhere on this forum >> I am going to read through everyone's more thoroughly later and respond then. thanks again!

hopefully you don't believe I think the earth is flat do you? i agree nothing can be proven, but the fact the earth is a sphere and there is no dome we hit as we try to go to orbit, has been pretty well established via direct observation by now. same with most of what I listed yes, i had some spec stuff on there (as in spec because it doesn't exist yet, but these ppl are getting ahead of it,so to speak. like with the 'dangers' of quantum computing) but everything else, I BELIEVE to be true and maybe we don't have all the aspects of the 'why' down or fully understood yet, but that does not keep the majority of us from not accepting the fact. thanks!!

Its not,actually you are just trying to shut down discussion. "shout down,shut down"" in effect you say there are good news sources, I am asking for some qualitative evidence to that.

but how to fight it on a mass and effective level? just closing one's eyes and waiting for the bad man to go away won't work. does the silence of scientists and educators on this create a type of 'vacuum' for these people to fill? "the scientists don't say anything because they know we are right" type of thing?

Found this tonight.... "binary Bias" an excerpt from:https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/201910/can-polarized-american-politics-find-the-middle-way .more : https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721418817755 there is always 'make Alberta great again'. you never know when some MAGA's may come in handy. and they already match the Canadian flag! Winning all around! Tremendous assets!!

Then please name me one American news source that is without bias and only reports news from a complete objective stance only. I'll admit, and I said it someplace here, I do not have 'live tv', I don't get the 'big 3' networks. I used to and got very sick of the nonsense during the Obama admin. I now watch American news snippets/aggregates on places like Pluto Tv and Youtube as well as . I also listen to NPR and all other news comes via foreign sources as I listed. I want to believe there is Cronkite type news out there still, because America definitely needs one or a hundred. thanks

I have background, experience and education, in the psychology field, mainly social-psychology. I was given a few suggestions of where to put this thread, and I chose this because I do not want it to be a psych-social discussion only. At the same time, I am not necessarily looking for comment on why these theories (word used loosely) are wrong- I know they are by the way- but rather are these denial-beliefs (as in denial of established science and a belief in having been deceived' / 'the truth is out there' type of thing) growing in followers? If you want to post a brief description/method for how you would explain to these people why they are wrong, then please do. Of course not all of these issues came to my attention due to the internet, but many of them I did find by using it. Particularly YouTube. We know that many of these denial-beliefs have existed for quite a while, like with the Flat Earth movement, and had many followers before the rise of the internet by everyday users. But has the internet become a great tool of outreach, contact and recruiter for them? The flat earth is not the only thing noticed, but for the sake of brevity in this post I will use it as a starter. But i will make a short list of some of the anti science/alt science and out right denial I have seen, feel free to add to and discuss if you like (i hope): -Gravity is not real -Quantum Computing we'll be used to change history and to control society. -fluoride and other additives in the drinking water is causing ... -contrails -the moon landings never happened -man has never been into orbit nor has any of his machines -satellites do not exist -vaccines are actually spreading disease -science is being taught to stifle our creativity and individualism -mesas are actually the petrified stumps of long ago cut down trees,done by ancient giants. -the Chinese have made human pig hybrids and are using them,en masse, to do genetic testing and weapons testing meant for the rest of us. and many more..... Also of note is that many of these people, if not all, have multiple, cross or co supporting beliefs in these issues. Many flat earthers start out having already believed in other denial-beliefs and will also hold a belief in any or all of the denial-belief 'spectrum' of issues. The flat earther may believe that vaccines are harmful and that contrails are used to spread mind controlling drugs, etc. Interestingly though, most flat earthers do not believe in aliens or alien abductions as space is not real.An example of how they do think this through so as not to contradict themselves. Most gow through great pains to appear normal and be accepted by society in other aspects of their lives. LASTLY for this portion, these people are very good at refusing to come to any type of commonality for discussion to be based on. Everything is a lie or fabrication,such as: "photos of the Earth from space are obvious Hollywood/NASA/JPL fakes, so you cant use that as evidence" It is almost like trying to have a discussion with someone over why the sky appears blue, but the other person does not even accept the premise that is the sky. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My thoughts on this. Yes we could absolutely just slough off these people and just say 'the earth is round, done science, bye'. But do we run the risk of our ignoring and discounting these movements to the detriment of the future of our society? That is, consider if and when any of these people get into some low level elected position like a local school board. And they do so in a manner that several of them are on it and they have a majority. Obviously they would be doing this for one reason; to change curriculum. Or the growing occurrence of young people choosing to not believe or try to understand what they are taught in school. The "science is just too hard" crowd. So they see a flat earth video on YT and say "Well, that was so well produced and the guy made so much sense, the Earth IS flat!" Assisting this trend is low level celebrities and sports figures and rappers making public declarations that the earth is flat. swaying those young minds pf mush into believing it as well. And this is an international occurrence, There seem to be large numbers in Britain and Europe, Canada and Australia. So, it is not just the education system of America that is lacking. Again, I only used flat earth as an example. The arguments and counter arguments used by these denier-believers are similar for every item out there. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here are a few items for reference. An article from Psychology Today online: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/201905/flat-earthers-redux-subjective-belief-science-and-reality How average people fall into it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg71tqpsVXY and should real scientists be engaging these people? Does it give them a type of validation by being able to debate with them?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7yvvq-9ytE There are thousands more for and against Thanks!

Ok. I think what you may be inferring is that you are one of the few in America who actually looks at more then one poll, from both sides of the political spectrum? But I hope we are honest enough to admit we know that the majority of Americans do not do this, I'd guess that they would not even know they could access polling data on their own.They just get the polling data from whatever news source they prefer (through whatever biased lens they report from). Americans have no need to any longer have to read or view the news, consume the info, or consider any data in search of confirmation for their political bias- the polls and the media construct a ready made confirmation bias package for them. The "we'll do all the thinking for you, stay tuned in 24/7" news network. They only need to turn on the tv or go to the website-- apparently the self imposed limit of their free choice. In this, then yes, polls are useful. So, I see that you must have a closet full of starched, bright red MAGA hats to wear-a new one for each day!

Yes, in today's socio-politico climate in America. I would even suggest (not claim definitively) that the failure of polls in accurately predicting outcomes in the 2016 Presidential election, and in the 2012 election to a lesser extent, may have been due to several levels of bias. By the pollsters, the participants, and those charged with analysis. I also think that in those instances-and today, the news organizations pick what polls to report on based on what message they want to convey--another symptom of the current 'news as entertainment' model. What? To question HOW the government is doing something? I suppose to some, that would be a catastrophic occurrence.

As for the news. I grew up watching stuff like Walter Cronkite and a young Dan Rather. In those 30 min broadcasts, the actual news was delivered with out comment or opinion.No 'slant' or bias made its way in to the reporting. But the anchors did have a chance to speak. At the end of every broadcast we all knew the 'editorial' segment was coming.If we didn't want to hear opinion, we could then shut it off having already gotten the news of the day. Now its an hour or more of the same show where snippets of news are used as springboards for a barrage of biased opinion. Places like CNN and FOX used to have on a guest representing the opposing view. Now that is rare. I don't have "live tv" but in the segments of American news I do sample on Pluto or youtube, I do not see any 'point - counterpoint' type discourse. It is all one sided with guests all from the left or the right and the only differences between them being the degree in which they are left or right. DW, France24, BBC, even Al Jazeera are what I normally select to watch--yes, I am biased against American "news" sources

So, first, sorry I am not around on my PC all day just waiting to fire back a response. I know I am retired, but there are still things to do Polls- the data is not biased, its data. How can numbers be biased? Numbers are useful. it is the interpretation of the numbers, the narratives that are written as a result of them. Then the spin-or not- that a right leaning or left leaning pollster may put on the meaning of the numbers. They may over inflate the importance or they may try to undercut the importance of the results. The article I attached, referenced CNN's coverage of the poll results. Navarro's response- invoking Kanye West and some other well know afr-am Trump supporters as being the sample population-- is a example of bias in newscast. If CNN was truly concerned with fairness and objectivity, then her response should have been edited on delay or however its done. Allowing her to include her opinion, heavily tainted by personal biases she holds, should be unacceptable -------------------------------------------------- Polls are not entirely useless, they are very useful to those seeking out confirmation of their own beliefs. If a person is a Sander's supporter for example, what polls do you think they will first search out and then read? Most likely ones that are titled something like "What is your opinion of Bernie Sanders?" When, if they wanted a more accurate report of the standing of Sanders, they should be looking for a poll that includes all democratic candidates. So, personal bias can ,and does, affect the news/polls we seek out in the first place, thereby opening us up to what amounts to seeking out validation. So, yes they are useful in that regard. Too many people will not look for views or opinions from the other side. Many will actually take active measures to avoid seeing anything that might be against their views. It is the way things are going more and more today. It is strongly connected to the "shout down/shut down" tactic used by people on both sides of the argument these days. They won't even let a person speak or read their full post or article simply because they may have a more moderate view or they may say one or two positive things about what/who you dislike. It is dangerous info to them; they don't want to be challenged by other views/opinions/data. Better to shut it down before it is even said/heard/read/viewed Assuming one is a "MAGA hat wearing Trump supporter" just because they question how the impeachment is being done (NOT because it is being done) is a further symptom of this social phenomena which is actually a process involving several layers of bias.

This is the kind of thing that makes me suspicious of nearly everything that is done in DC lately. as you said " everybody needed a 'win'..." almost as if it was part of some deal... Trump = "ok, you guys (dems) go ahead with impeachment, and I'll tell you what- I won't even mount a defense at the hearings. I 'll make a little noise, but you guys do your thing to deliver to your base and you give me what I need for my base. It will all work out, winning for everyone...tremendous" ---------------------------- I had a sickening thought (as in something that would make everything worse). Say Trump gets convicted in the Senate, then will we have a "political - Martyr Trump?" because you just know he wont be able to just go away or stay quiet. His supporters- turned to Pence supporters, would be called to action ("to arms, to arms!") over his conviction. I am just glad I live where we do..far away from major population centers.

how are they red herrings? you see this is bias in action, you posted a news story from abc and you call it good, i post some polls and you call it a red herring with a climate model or any thing else in the physical sciences, i would agree with you, you can't dismiss if something has the data to back it up so now i am carefully assuming that you are a scientist? If yes, then I believe it is also reasonable to say that when you see information presented to you, then it all has been proven by use of long accepted methods, maybe peer reviewed and published? That would make it unassailable fact, yes? this process in which you work in then forms your professional/vocational or academic bias. That is, you expect everything you see that is reasonably presented and seemingly well researched to have been done to the same standard and rigor as the scientific info. you are used to. But, as I have stated before, every student in the social sciences learns that nothing can be proven in the field, there are no facts other then the basics; the function of the brain and CNS for psychology students; the discovered written records of history and the physical evidence of archaeology and a few others. Everything else is incapable of being proven in the same manner as in science; one could run a psych experiment one day then the same a week later on the same group of people with the same variables and get different results. That would never happen in physical science. This is why political science and the information extracted from data sets-like polling, is subjective and biased. Too many unknown and uncontrollable variables. Therefore all a poll taker can do is tally their data and make a opinion based on it. In this action of this person, bias is going to take effect. If he has some outliers, say one skewed to the right politically and the other left, and he is a right leaning person, there is very good chance he will include the right skewing data. humans are flawed and the study of human behavior is as well. there is no way around it. we can only work with what we think are he best and most accurate data- a far cry from what the science community can do.

well, thank you all for answering! @strange, @charonY, @phiforall as i have alluded to i am not a 'science person' by training or vocation, but as wit all human endeavors, I have a great interest in it, its uses and applications and potentials On another forum where I have been for quite awhile (an entertainment- multi genre but mainly sci fi ) we have a lot of sub forums on various topics like you do here. One is on fringe theories, conspiracy and anti intellectualism in general but that discussion is "lighter" as we are a different type of forum from here. I have seen a growth , and yes, i have quizzed YT/google if there is a way to find a way to measure this growth, but no answer yet- over the last 10 yrs or so in the number of videos on things like flat earth and all other manner of nonsense yes, its expected, as one of you said with the nature of the internet, but what i find concerning is how believers in these things have a intangible nexus of sorts, where all of these beliefs merge and they are all co-supporters of each other...the flat earth community spts the anti vaxxer one--the 'no gravity one spts the young earth one and so on i will start a thread, what sub forum should i put it in, and, is it ok if i use (my material only) that i have posted elsewhere? and no, this is not a social psych experiment! i am a long way removed from that part of my life and I am currently retired/disabled thanks again

I used the search function, but I think I may not be using a good enough search phrase/keyword and can't find what I am interested in asking/reading opinions on that is, what is the level of concern -if any- to the rise on social media of non science and anti intellectualism? In particular, topics like, but not limited to, a disbelief in gravity, creationism, flat earth, refusal to accept that humans have gone to space/moon, <more> ? I dont want to start a thread -- well I am not even sure if one would be allowed--if there is already one up thank you!

thanks .the only thing I am entrenched in though, is that, I FEEL for about 30yrs now, our national ability to have civil discourse on political and social issues has slid to a near savage low. In those years the nation put aside this bloodsport for 2 events: the 9/11 attacks, and then in support for the 2003 Iraq war scheme. after a unspoken but seemingly agreed upon period of mourning for these two events was over, it was back to "game on" the governance of our nation should not be conducted in a manner that very much resembles team sports. Opinion concluded

i am not saying it is inaccurate, I am pointing out that there is no governing authority over any of these 'media watcher' groups. So there is no standard to turn to to scrutinize their methods, many people we just go with what network or polling site has info or data that appeals to them and re-enforces their confirmation bias . a liberal will go to MSNBC, a conservative will go to FOX or Breitbart. Some one who considers themselves moderate and not interested in exhaustive partisan opinions in place of their news, could once go to CNN, but they too have departed from straight news for some time now. Whether it is your example or mine--and I did (in bold letters) state that my example hs no more stadnig then yours-- there is still one fatal flaw no matter how much scrutiny they use to monitor networks, or how elaborate their ranking system is. The fatal flaw is that there are still humans designing the software and collecting,analyzing and publishing the data used to make their rankings. ------------------------ Let me give you another example if I could. These linked to polls show that their has been a large increase among african americans , and non whites, for Trump over the last 6 months or so. As much as a 30% approval rating for Trump is indicated (to which i call BS btw) Now keeping in mind your statement of - "If the polls are biased, you must show where, why, amd how. You can’t summarily dismiss them because of the source. " so, do you, or anyone here, accept them or dismiss them? extract from: https://pjmedia.com/election/and-then-there-were-3-marist-poll-shows-33-approval-for-trump-among-non-white-voters/ "A new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll concludes that 33 percent of non-white voters approve of Donald J. Trump's performance as president. 57 percent of non-white voters supposedly disapprove of his performance. Although these would be horrendous approval ratings for a Democrat, they're actually very good for a Republican. For example, back in 2005, African American approval of then President George W. Bush was a mere 16 percent. As we reported on Monday, both a Rasmussen poll and a poll by Emerson show 34 percent approval for President Trump among African Americans."

ok, sure, but I already addressed this. the issue of "Who rates the raters who watches the watchers" So who is to say that Ad Fontes (chart you posted) is accurate in where they assign media organizations? Same applies to the chart i posted. Also, note how you started your post: " I find this chart far more useful.." "find" indicates a result of your reasoning;a subjective opinion. 'useful'. how exactly is it useful? by quality, quantity or simply because you agree with it and therefore it is useful in your statements? i am really not trying to sharpshoot anyone or be personal about things, i am just addressing them as I was trained to address any other political opinion and observation in school. much, if not all of this, would fall into the field of political psychology, my 'lens'