onyx1

Suggesting that there is only one way to view the world (yours!) would strike most as elitist. I see it as the creepy-clown of arguments. Sorry, I'm confused now. I thought that I was representing your view accurately. Didn't you say that you aren't rational when it comes to politics, and--what's more--there's only one way people view politics--irrationally? Or are you just trying to say that your own views are creepy-clown? That said, one of the great things about your "I'm not rational" position--one of the things I admire the most about it--is that you're totally within your rights to claim, "X is true", and then a day later say, "X is not true" and not feel any sense of contradiction. It reminds me of O'Brian in 1984, a brilliant concept for a character, IMO. You are confused because you are arguing with a person you hallucinate me to be.

Suggesting that there is only one way to view the world (yours!) would strike most as elitist. I see it as the creepy-clown of arguments.

I think it's quite a useful point he makes. Basically, onyx doesn't really care to be rational, thoughtful, or reasonable in any sense of the word. For him, it's not at all about qualifications, demeanor, intelligence, or ethics. He finds Trump prettier than Clinton and will therefore unapologetically vote for him, for who says that reason, logic, or facts should play any part in deciding the leader of the free world? It explains nicely so many people don't seem to be acting rationally, and why the core of Trump's base is the racists, the violent, and the misogynists. This election might not be the battle of the sexes, the war of the corrupt, or the maverick vs. the establishment. It might actually be the fight between the reasonable and the unreasonable. (And one of the nice things about onyx's unreasonableness is that he can claim that everyone is like that, including him. It nicely avoids any sort of cognitive dissonance, enabling him to justify anything and feel good about himself, while still believing that people should take him seriously. I think it's pretty neat.) Richard, I tried to raise couple of times the issue of Hillary proposal of redefining short term capital gains to 6 years. I would not get one response. Why is that on a forum for investors? http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-to-propose-rise-in-capital-gains-taxes-on-short-term-investments-1437747732 Could it be that in politics........ [wait for it] ................ facts don't matter?

I think support for Trump would be cause to end a friendship, especially if you've reasoned with the person. A good example of someone who doesn't understand how people make political decisions.

That's why I asked if facts matter to you. Tengen, No more or less than any other human, and in the context of politics that means no. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply deluding themselves. By asking this question I don't think you caught my point, so let me try one more time. I terms of persuading the electorate, facts & reason don't matter. What does matter? 1) Identity to a group or cause. 2) Stories or analogies. 3) Facts & reason. Group identity is more effective than a story. Stories are more effective than facts. And facts are better than....nothing. Trump's emphasis on 1 & 2 has kept him in the race despite battling the Democrat party, the media, and many in his own party. His appeal is long on emotion and identity groups like proud Americans, law & order lovers, and the religious among many others. Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and won a second term by ignoring facts & reason and by emphasizing 1 & 2. Despite all the complaining about it, there is a reason why winning political parties play identity politics: it works. And there is a lot of wisdom in the old etiquette rule: "Never discuss religion or politics."

They certainly don't matter to Trump. In 40 minutes of speaking time, he made 33 false statements And how many minds will this change? Answer: Zero How about your mind? Do facts matter to you? https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/10/10/fact-check-donald-trump-made-33-false-claims-at-second-debate.html You're going to drive yourself crazy thinking you can change anyone's political support with facts & reason. When was the last time you sat down and carefully went through a long, anti-Hillary feature article from a conservative website or Fox News? A long while, if ever. I bet you are more likely to skip the article and go right to the comment section looking for confirmation of how bad the article is. You're not alone. It's equally true for Trump supporters like me as well. That's my point, humans aren't rational. It's a harmful-to-your-health mistake to think we are. If humans were rational, we'd all agree on a single religion, and we would only need one person in a jury box instead of twelve. We all make articles-of-faith decisions on topics like religion & politics based on emotion & deeply-held views of the world learned early in life. Then we (1) seek confirming evidence to support our decision, and (2) ignore/rationalize all conflicting evidence. Because facts don't inform our choices, the introduction of new ones won't change our choices. The upside of understanding this a lowering of anxiety and an increase in quality of life. I wish I would have learned it decades ago. I no longer look at friends, family, and other intelligent people condescendingly because they won't be persuaded by my reasoned arguments. Of all the ways to effectively persuade others in politics, facts & reason are at the bottom.

You need to carve out the men who let their wives dress them everyday, they support Hillary. alt=Image result for beta maleshttp://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/07/pajama-boy-screenshot-640x480.jpg[/img]

I agree. Scott Adams is profoundly brilliant. He has completely transformed my thinking on how people make political decisions. I now understand why facts & rational arguments are useless when in the realm of politics or articles of faith. And, reactions (like almost all of the messages posted on this thread) are so easy to predict that it's become laughable. Thanks to Packer for the original link to him. He may have some really clever thoughts. I read through his blog a bit. But he says Trump has 98% chance of winning. That pretty much got me to stop reading his stuff, not because he seems to be pro-Trump but because I really question his judgement. Am i reading it wrong? If he is wrong about the election it will be another addition to his long list of failures including careers in banking, telecom, a computer game maker, restaurant owner, and app designer. He also believes there is a high probability that we are all living in a computer simulation. A normal reaction would be to ignore him as a loser and a crackpot (like some on the thread have already done). But anyone doing so would miss a chance to learn some serious life lessons that he has to offer from those very failures. His main approach to life is try, fail, learn, repeat. But he is far from a failure. He is a fabulously wealthy, a best-selling author, a highly-paid speaker, a cartoonist who is syndicated in 2000 newspapers in 65 countries, a trained hypnotist, a student of persuasion, and dates a girl who looks like a super model (to some). A lot of attention is paid to people who have made quick riches like Elizabeth Holmes, Michael Burry, and others who have "cracked" the secret to success. Of course, people what replicate that very success. But what practice knowledge can one really expect to learn from these right-place-at-the-right-time people? IMO, not much. I pickup much more useful knowledge from rare people like Scott Adams who not only have failed time & again, but possess the talent for simplifying lessons and writing in an easy-to-read style. I don't have the time at the moment to reply to everything you said, but I'd be shocked if we were not living in some type of simulation. The chances that we are in base reality are so small to be almost nonexistent. Certainly a "blow your mind" thought experiment. Puts some of life's quantum mysteries into place. Deserves it's own thread.

I agree. Scott Adams is profoundly brilliant. He has completely transformed my thinking on how people make political decisions. I now understand why facts & rational arguments are useless when in the realm of politics or articles of faith. And, reactions (like almost all of the messages posted on this thread) are so easy to predict that it's become laughable. Thanks to Packer for the original link to him. He may have some really clever thoughts. I read through his blog a bit. But he says Trump has 98% chance of winning. That pretty much got me to stop reading his stuff, not because he seems to be pro-Trump but because I really question his judgement. Am i reading it wrong? If he is wrong about the election it will be another addition to his long list of failures including careers in banking, telecom, a computer game maker, restaurant owner, and app designer. He also believes there is a high probability that we are all living in a computer simulation. A normal reaction would be to ignore him as a loser and a crackpot (like some on the thread have already done). But anyone doing so would miss a chance to learn some serious life lessons that he has to offer from those very failures. His main approach to life is try, fail, learn, repeat. But he is far from a failure. He is a fabulously wealthy, a best-selling author, a highly-paid speaker, a cartoonist who is syndicated in 2000 newspapers in 65 countries, a trained hypnotist, a student of persuasion, and dates a girl who looks like a super model (to some). A lot of attention is paid to people who have made quick riches like Elizabeth Holmes, Michael Burry, and others who have "cracked" the secret to success. Of course, people what replicate that very success. But what practice knowledge can one really expect to learn from these right-place-at-the-right-time people? IMO, not much. I pickup much more useful knowledge from rare people like Scott Adams who not only have failed time & again, but possess the talent for simplifying lessons and writing in an easy-to-read style.

From the CFPB Opinion, page 33: "Third, the CFPB cited Congress’s 2008 creation of a single head of the new Federal Housing Finance Agency. See Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-289, § 1101, 122 Stat. 2654, 2662 (codified at 12 U.S.C. §§ 4511-4512). That agency is a contemporary of the CFPB and merely raises the same question we confront here. A body created only in 2008 obviously does not constitute a historical precedent for the CFPB."

They certainly don't matter to Trump. In 40 minutes of speaking time, he made 33 false statements And how many minds will this change? Answer: Zero

The mistake here is the belief that facts matter.

I agree. Scott Adams is profoundly brilliant. He has completely transformed my thinking on how people make political decisions. I now understand why facts & rational arguments are useless when in the realm of politics or articles of faith. And, reactions (like almost all of the messages posted on this thread) are so easy to predict that it's become laughable. Thanks to Packer for the original link to him.

I'm beginning to think a Trump presidency will cause some people's heads to explode.

It's not the Trump supporters who are violent.

In this election cycle, media opinions like these only further embolden Trump supporters.

Deep truth, no. Confirmation bias, yes.

Personal insults and Hitler references seem to be all they have left.

Another professional persuader sees the future. Michael Moore, last night: “Pro-Hillary gloaters doing end-zone dance again when still on 50-yd line, you must get it in your head Trump is gonna win and act accordingly!”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/clinton-why-arent-i-50-points-ahead-of-trump/2016/09/21/d9142b3e-8072-11e6-9578-558cc125c7ba_video.html Ouch! This is painful to listen to.

It'd be nice to overhear this from the oval office in the first week of a Trump presidency: "Carl, say that again. I can sell the GSE warrants for how much?"

A broken clock is right twice a day. If they keep peddling these conspiracy theories , I'm sure some will ultimately stick. I hope you apply these principles in investing too. Just because you picked a winning stock doesn't make you a great investor . In the long run your process will determine the results. I always find it amusing to be lectured my someone with a fraction of my life experience. As far as my financial welfare please don't be concerned, I'm doing just fine.

So what kind of pneumonia allows someone to fully recover 90 minutes after a collapse? This medical expert believes it's hogwash and the facts support her having Parkinsons. If true, I think we can all agree she is disqualified. Will she admit it? Not on a chance. It's got to be painful to be a democrat and watch this train wreck. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-13/medical-doctor-explains-why-hillarys-911-medical-episode-looks-more-parkinsons-pneum You just quoted zerohedge. People will tell you to stay away from far right media like Fox and ZeroHedge. They said the exact same about the National Enquirer for 3 months when they wrote stories about primary poll-leading John Edwards's extra-marital affair & love child. Who ended up being right there? It's best to read it all and make your own decisions.

So what kind of pneumonia allows someone to fully recover 90 minutes after a collapse? This medical expert believes it's hogwash and the facts support her having Parkinsons. If true, I think we can all agree she is disqualified. Will she admit it? Not on a chance. It's got to be painful to be a democrat and watch this train wreck. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-13/medical-doctor-explains-why-hillarys-911-medical-episode-looks-more-parkinsons-pneum Zero hedge!! And the article written by Tyler Durden!! Is that your credible source? I know someone who is unemployed,lives in his Mom's basement and can write better than this dude. He is a medical doctor with 36 years of experience, he has some credibility. On the other hand Hillary and her team don't have a lot of credibility with me: First, they said it was just a cough, then it was just a wacko conspiracy theory, then it was seasonal allergy, then is was overheating (high 70's moderate humidity) then it was dehydration. Without the benefit of an iphone video, it would have ending right there, but Unlucky Hillary got caught. Now from her Doctor: "My overall impression is that Mrs. Clinton has remained healthy and has not developed new medical conditions this year other than a sinus and ear infection and her recently diagnosed pneumonia." This is typical Clintonian wordcraft. (Remember "Depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."?) Believe whoever you what, but I'm not buying what Hillary is trying to sell.