Trump Is Reality TV, Mueller Is The Wire

[BananaStand]

Ignoring the fact that he starts out by plainly lying about initially supporting the war in Iraq,

What did he lie about??

1:42
https://youtu.be/77P6fxa2KOs

That's the exact account he gave to Lester Holt. Literally zero embellishment or spin.

he then goes on a rambling incoherent monologue.

Can you explain what you think "incoherent" means? Because I understood every word that came out of his mouth, and I understand why he said each one.

Also, that smug Hillary face almost makes me want to vote for Trump.

No joking, it should. Re-watching them made me remember what a milque-toast-y pushover she was. She might have won if she was more of a bitch.

Way off topic, but I will say that if that's what feminism produces, then it's no wonder women make 75% of what men make. Grow a pair ladies.

[OngBonga]

One of the sad truths of aging is the cognitive decline that comes with it. The stark contrast between c. 1990 Trump and 2018 Trump is a textbook example.

What's fascinating is that you can't nod your head and say "fair play" to a man that, depsite being at an age where "congnitive decline" is inevitable, he's still absolutely fucking killing it. As if being a successful billionaire wasn't enough, he became POTUS.

All because he says things that you don't want to hear in a manner of speech that you find "incoherent" (which, if true, is your fault, not his).

[OngBonga]

I mean honestly, consider that you're taking pot shots at his physical health, despite him being in better shape than most 70+ people who have had a life of eating well and banging hookers, and you take pot shots at his "cognitive decline", depsite him being in better mental shape than the vast, vast majority of 70+ people. I know one thing, if I make it to 70, I'll be fucked if I take that amount of stress on board for literally any amount of money. He's fucking thriving on it.

[BananaStand]

I mean honestly, consider that you're taking pot shots at his physical health, despite him being in better shape than most 70+ people

Interesting factoid about DJT, he claims he's never had a drop of alcohol, smoked a cigarette, or done any illegal drugs.

Where do you rate that one on the truth-o-meter Poop?

[Poopadoop]

Here we go again with semantics.

What does "incoherent" mean to you poop? I'm reading a trascript of his interview with WSJ, and his language comes across as "logical and consistent".

Babbling? Maybe, but I can follow him, I understand what he's trying to say. Logical? The words make sentences. Consistent? He's not contradicting himself.

You've got it in you head that he's "incoherent" but you're wrong. What you mean is he uses dumbed down language.

To me 'coherence' refers to the degree to which you can follow someone's chain of thought, that ideas follow one another in some kind of logical order.

It's actually a pretty low standard of communication because if you can't manage basic coherence, it doesn't matter if you are using a large vocabulary and have perfect grammar, etc. It's the bottom rung of communication.

Looking here:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/transcr...nal-1515715481

I'd say it's about 75% incoherent.

He can be sort of coherent when his answers are just bragging and not about policy:

Mr. Trump: Well, I think more than anything else it’s the great success that we’ve had in the last year. And you know if you remember the first quarter was a very low GDP, when Obama’s last quarter. It was the slowest growing recovery, a very minor recovery, but it’s the worst recovery they’ve had since the Great Depression. And our country was headed in the wrong direction.

But get him on a topic of policy and he rambles with no apparent direction. Here's a sample of him talking about immigration. I don't know how anyone can read this without getting a headache. Starts off talking about dreamers, then mentions chain migration, then gets onto some guy who murdered people, then something about people with no legs, then ... etc. etc. There's no coherent message here, I mean wtf is he actually saying?

WSJ: Speaking of being flexible it sounds as if there’s an immigration deal that has been struck amongst senators on the hill that’s been sent to the White House for approval?

Mr. Trump: Getting close.

WSJ: Have you—have you seen anything from the Senate yet?

Mr. Trump: No but it’s getting close. They—want, I feel, you know, I have great feeling for DACA. I think that we should be able to do something with DACA. I think it’s foolish if we don’t, they’ve been here a long time, they’re no longer children, you know. People talk of them as children, I mean some are 41 years old and older. But some are in their teens, and late teens, but nevertheless I think we should do something with DACA and I think we should do something to help people.

It wasn’t their fault, their parents came in, it wasn’t their fault. So we’re in the process of trying to work something out. I hope we can do it. I don’t think it has to take that long. The lottery system is a disaster, we have to get rid of the lottery system. The—as you know chain is—chain migration is a horrible situation. You’ve seen the ads, you’ve seen everything, you know all about chain.

This person on the west side that killed eight people and badly, you heard me say yesterday, badly, badly wounded about 12. I mean people losing arms and legs—nobody even talks about that. But they say killed eight and that’s it. I mean you have people—ones walking around without—missing two legs. And the person was running to stay in shape and now he’s missing two legs. Think of it.

But this person, who should’ve never been allowed into this country, came in through the lottery. When they interviewed his neighborhood, they say he was horrible. You’d say good morning to him and he’d start cursing at you. They didn’t want him so they sent him through the lottery, you know, congratulations United States.

So the lottery has to end, chain migration—he brought in they say 22 people through the chain. So we have 22 of his relatives, why? And I honestly think that the Democrats are with us on that. We’ll find out. I mean who wouldn’t be? Who wouldn’t be? Unless it’s somebody that didn’t love our country, and the Democrats love our country. We have different views but the Democrats love our country.

So yeah, I think, Michael, I think we have a good chance to make a deal. We have to have a wall. We don’t have a wall, we’re not doing the deal.

[Poopadoop]

in a manner of speech that you find "incoherent" (which, if true, is your fault, not his).

Trust me, language comprehension is something I'm well endowed with. If someone routinely makes no sense, that's not my fault, it's the speaker's.

[boost]

Interesting factoid about DJT, he claims he's never had a drop of alcohol, smoked a cigarette, or done any illegal drugs.

Where do you rate that one on the truth-o-meter Poop?

I think the statement is likely true, but potentially very misleading. There are perfectly legal drugs that can be consumed in a way that would be much more worrying than someone that goes through a six pack or two a week.

Not saying it's the case that Trump consumes legal drugs in this way, but that carve out shouldn't be ignored.

On top of that, I'm not totally sure teatolling(being inclusive of illicit drugs as well as alcohol) is something that is necessarily praise or brag worthy. Altered states of mind offer potentially unique perspectives which can lead to innovative solutions/ideas.

[BananaStand]

But get him on a topic of policy and he rambles with no apparent direction. ..... I mean wtf is he actually saying?

I can't believe this is difficult for you. Maybe you just don't know all of the moving parts within the immigration debate. Or maybe you just don't understand english. But let me break it down, one paragraph at a time.

1. Yes I am optimistic about reaching a deal on legislation that protects immigrant children. Let me clarify, not just children, alot of these people are older, and they count too.

2. I want to help those people, and it really should be easy to make a deal. The things I'm asking for - eliminating lottery and chain migration - are common sense measures.

3&4 - Here's an example of why lottery and chain migration are such obvious problems. We get alot of ass holes who shit all over our country. I want to plug those ass holes, and so do the democrats. It's gonna be easy, 'cause I'm a negotiating master, and I'm fucking awesome. See how easy it is for me. In your fucking face Barry.

[Poopadoop]

To me 'coherence' refers to the degree to which you can follow someone's chain of thought, that ideas follow one another in some kind of logical order.

So in other words, I'm using the dictionary definition of coherence. Is that good enough for you, or do you want to use a different definition?

coherence
kə(ʊ)ˈhɪər(ə)ns,kə(ʊ)ˈhɪərəns/
noun
noun: coherence; plural noun: coherences

1.
the quality of being logical and consistent.
"this raises further questions on the coherence of state policy"
synonyms: consistency, logicality, good sense, soundness, organization, orderliness, unity; More
clarity, articulacy;
intelligibility, comprehensibility
"this raises further questions on the coherence of state policy"
antonyms: incoherence
2.
the quality of forming a unified whole.
"the group began to lose coherence and the artists took separate directions"

[Poopadoop]

I can't believe this is difficult for you. Maybe you just don't know all of the moving parts within the immigration debate. Or maybe you just don't understand english. But let me break it down, one paragraph at a time.

1. Yes I am optimistic about reaching a deal on legislation that protects immigrant children. Let me clarify, not just children, alot of these people are older, and they count too.

2. I want to help those people, and it really should be easy to make a deal. The things I'm asking for - eliminating lottery and chain migration - are common sense measures.

3&4 - Here's an example of why lottery and chain migration are such obvious problems. We get alot of ass holes who shit all over our country. I want to plug those ass holes, and so do the democrats.

The fact that someone can piece together a hypothesis about someone's meaning by re-arranging the words they used is not evidence the initial message was coherent.

[Poopadoop]

Interesting factoid about DJT, he claims he's never had a drop of alcohol, smoked a cigarette, or done any illegal drugs.

Where do you rate that one on the truth-o-meter Poop?

About somewhere between irrelevant and off topic.

[OngBonga]

There's no coherent message here, I mean wtf is he actually saying?

I didn't seem to have a problem. Maybe I'm more well endowed than you when it comes to reeading comprehension.

He's saying that the lottery system (whatever that is, I assume it means something to Americans) for immigrants isn't working, and he's using rather colourful references to recent events to support his argument. Fuck knows what DACA is but again, I imagine an American would immediately know. Based on context, I guess it's legislation he supports.

He's not incoherent, not to me. He's garrulous. There's a word you won't hear Trump use.

[Poopadoop]

I didn't seem to have a problem. Maybe I'm more well endowed than you when it comes to reeading comprehension.

He's saying that the lottery system (whatever that is, I assume it means something to Americans) for immigrants isn't working, and he's using rather colourful references to recent events to support his argument. Fuck knows what DACA is but again, I imagine an American would immediately know. Based on context, I guess it's legislation he supports.

He's not incoherent, not to me. He's garrulous. There's a word you won't hear Trump use.

I'm sure you are.

Being coherent means the reader doesn't have to play detective, sift through irrelevant tangents, and reconstruct the meaning in a hit- and - miss manner by teasing out the phrases that are comprehensible from the ones that aren't.

So saying it's coherent because you can hazard a fairly decent guess as to what it means doesn't qualify, sorry.

[BananaStand]

Being coherent means the reader doesn't have to play detective, sift through irrelevant tangents, and reconstruct the meaning in a hit- and - miss manner by teasing out the phrases that are comprehensible from the ones that aren't..

Then by your definition, everything in that WSJ transcript was coherent. I don't think you have to play detective. I don't think there are irrelevant tangents. There's no need to sort incomprehensible from comprehensible. It's all comprehensible.

So saying it's coherent because you can hazard a fairly decent guess as to what it means doesn't qualify, sorry.

There's that fanatical agnosticism again. Every word, phrase, and sentence was relevant and understandable. But I guess, since I can't read his mind and know for sure what he meant, then I'm just hazarding a fairly decent guess. pfffffffftt

[Poopadoop]

Every word, phrase, and sentence was relevant and understandable.

There is some subjectivity to coherence, but not this much. Speaking in complete English sentences and understandable phrases is not the definition of coherence.

Allow me to demonstrate:

Coherent: The First World War began in 1914 and lasted for four years. It was initially fought between the Central Powers, which included Germany and Austria-Hungary, and the Triple Entente, which was comprised of Russia, France, and the UK. Other countries also entered into the fray after the war began, most notably the United States in 1917. The war cost millions of lives and led to widespread devastation in Europe. The war ended with the Treaty of Versailles, which was later seen as a largely punitive peace settlement, and a major factor leading to the rise of Nazi Germany and the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939.

Incoherent: There was a war once, the First World War they called it. Because it happened first. And they fought it in Europe, only, you know, it was a world war so the United States was also involved. And it caused great damage, and lots people died. I mean a lot of people died. Do you know how many? Me neither, but it was a lot, like millions, ok? And when the war ended, they all got together and made peace. And no-one was happy because it was not a real peace, but only temporary. And that's how Germany lost the First World War and started the Second.

[BananaStand]

THey're both totally coherent

[Poopadoop]

THey're both totally coherent

I see. So because example 2 is a pretty damn good impression of how Trump might describe WW1, it's coherent.

But, if you asked two people on the street to describe WW1 and those were the answers you got, which one would you prefer teaching history to your kid? Which one seems to know wtf their talking about and which one is babbling?

[BananaStand]

I see. So because example 2 is a pretty damn good impression of how Trump might describe WW1, it's coherent.

But, if you asked two people on the street to describe WW1 and those were the answers you got, which one would you prefer teaching history to your kid? Which one seems to know wtf their talking about and which one is babbling?

Except no one is asking Trump to teach history. They're asking him to run the economy, kill terrorists, and drain the swamp. And in those regards Trump seems to have expressed himself coherently enough to convince people to vote for him over 18 other people.

[OngBonga]

It's coherent because it's logical and consistent.

Alow me to share my "subjective" view of coherence...

Coherent...
I'm going to roll myself a spliff and make myself a cup of tea.

Incoherent...
Ima get woosh anna brew.

[OngBonga]

Coherent (but somewhat garrulous) -
I am rolling myself a joint, because, y'know, I like to smoke, not much of a drinker, except for tea, ooh yes a cup of tea too, spliff and tea.

[Poopadoop]

Coherent (but somewhat garrulous) -
I am rolling myself a joint, because, y'know, I like to smoke, not much of a drinker, except for tea, ooh yes a cup of tea too, spliff and tea.

That's garrulous but not on Trump's level where it becomes incoherent.


Try: "Some people like spliffs. I have them sometimes because I like them. Some and times are also two separate words but here they're one word. You know what I like with a spliff? No? I do. I like a tea with a spliff. I know what I like. A tea with a spliff, because it's like another thing you can have with a spliff that is a drink, but not any drink. No, a tea drink, which is like a different kind of drink than say, a coffee drink or a wine drink or a water drink. Those are all different drinks, but I like tea. You know, the one you make with a teabag in a pot? Thats called tea. "

That's Trump babble-speak and it's also how five year old girls talk (except replace tea and spliff with milk and cookies). Are you saying an intelligent person talks like a five year old girl?

[OngBonga]

That's the most loaded question I've ever been asked.

[Poopadoop]

I've heard some loaded questions before, I mean loaded like a gun. But that one, that question you asked me, boy is it loaded boy. I mean boy. And when I say boy I mean a boy, not a man or a girl or a dog or a cat or a pigeon or a squirrel, but a boy. And you know I mean it is loaded, like a gun. A gun is loaded with bullets and there are bullets in that question. And bullets shoot out of a gun and the gun goes bang, and then the bullets come out. And that's why your question is loaded like a gun, because of the bullets.

fyp

[BananaStand]

They try to say I'm incoherent. Can you believe that? Have you ever heard such nonsense? I use words, I have the best words, and when I talk I speak very clearly. Like this. Can you understand me right now. I'm talking, you're listening, we're communicating. What's hard to understand? Look at that guy, he's laughing. You alright buddy? You gonna be alright? Get this guy some water please. Someone...ok, we're good. See they say I'm a bad guy but here I am looking out for everybody. so they say I'm incoherent, that i don't know how to talk, but I'm talking right now. I'm talking in front of this great crowd. This is probably the best crowd there has ever been. When I talk to my friends about crowds, they tell their stories and act like they all have great audiences. But then I talk about you guys and they all just....let me tell you about this guy, he was sweating so much because his audience was so small. I said Fred, why are you sweating? And then I offered to send about two dozen people from this crowd, over to Fred's event, and now Fred's ok. Give Fred a call ok. Like him on facebook. Do you see what they're saying about me on Facebook? They're saying I'm incoherent. They're saying "this guy Trump..he can't even talk" But we all know I'm talking right now and everybody knows what I'm saying. We're gonna make America Great Again. We're gonna drain the swamp. And we're gonna make America Great again...Again.

[Poopadoop]

They try to say I'm incoherent. Can you believe that? Have you ever heard such nonsense? I use words, I have the best words, and when I talk I speak very clearly. Like this. Can you understand me right now. I'm talking, you're listening, we're communicating. What's hard to understand? Look at that guy, he's laughing. You alright buddy? You gonna be alright? Get this guy some water please. Someone...ok, we're good. See they say I'm a bad guy but here I am looking out for everybody. so they say I'm incoherent, that i don't know how to talk, but I'm talking right now. I'm talking in front of this great crowd. This is probably the best crowd there has ever been. When I talk to my friends about crowds, they tell their stories and act like they all have great audiences. But then I talk about you guys and they all just....let me tell you about this guy, he was sweating so much because his audience was so small. I said Fred, why are you sweating? And then I offered to send about two dozen people from this crowd, over to Fred's event, and now Fred's ok. Give Fred a call ok. Like him on facebook. Do you see what they're saying about me on Facebook? They're saying I'm incoherent. They're saying "this guy Trump..he can't even talk" But we all know I'm talking right now and everybody knows what I'm saying. We're gonna make America Great Again. We're gonna drain the swamp. And we're gonna make America Great again...Again.

tl;dr

I'm guessing the message is something along the lines of 'i can babble like a little kid and still be intelligent at the same time.'

[boost]

lol at the idea that both brief histories of WWI were equally coherent.

The thing is, Trump's ramblings act (intentionally or not) as policy horoscopes. There are regularly spaced meaningless tangential strings of words tossed in, that allow a listener predisposed to agreeing with Trump to fill in their preferred policy positions. Combined with the fact that any time he can be nailed down on something that doesn't fit his audience's views, it's claimed he is trolling, using a negotiating tactic, etc. It's a pretty cool parlor trick, but it's scary when it's the m.o. of our president.

[BananaStand]

lol at the idea that both brief histories of WWI were equally coherent.

The thing is, Trump's ramblings act (intentionally or not) as policy horoscopes. There are regularly spaced meaningless tangential strings of words tossed in, that allow a listener predisposed to agreeing with Trump to fill in their preferred policy positions. Combined with the fact that any time he can be nailed down on something that doesn't fit his audience's views, it's claimed he is trolling, using a negotiating tactic, etc. It's a pretty cool parlor trick, but it's scary when it's the m.o. of our president.

I think you're really trying too hard to find some kind of nefarious explanations for the times when Trump is vague or seemingly contradictory.

He can say things like "let's take the guns first, do due process later" and sound like a real populist guy with the best intentions of safety at heart. Meanwhile he KNOWS that a republican house and senate will never ever pass something like that into law. What would be interesting would be to see how Trump adjusts...or if he adjusts....in the event that the Democrats gain power in 2018.

It's a whole new ball game if he's spouting liberal gun control ideas and Pelosi is across the table going "yeah....yeah, let's make that happen"

[boost]

Yeah, I like that counterfactual. Of course I want to see it play out for other reasons as well, but I hadn't really thought of this one, and it would be cool to be able to test some stuff like your claim above.

[BananaStand]

Yeah, I like that counterfactual. Of course I want to see it play out for other reasons as well, but I hadn't really thought of this one, and it would be cool to be able to test some stuff like your claim above.

I think it's interesting because there are so many possibilities.

Trump could adjust and retreat right hoping to preserve his voting base.

Trump could not adjust and keep occasionally dropping non-conservative bombshells. From that point, there are even more branching outcomes. Any legislation that gets passed could get touted as a victory for bi-partisanship (think Gingrich-Clinton). Or there could be backlash from conservatives who feel betrayed. Or...it's possible that as Trump moves towards the middle, he wins liberal voters who feel the Dems are going too far left. Or...it's possible that Dems could keep doing what their doing and obstruct anything that comes out of Trumps mouth. Like, Trump could say "let's cure cancer" and dems would say "but doctors would lose jobs!!"

[MadMojoMonkey]

Half-asleep nonsense.

Deleted.

[Poopadoop]

He can say things like "let's take the guns first, do due process later"

He also says a lot of things that are contradictory and hence his policy overall is incoherent. It's not just about sentence construction.

[BananaStand]

He also says a lot of things that are contradictory and hence his policy overall is incoherent. It's not just about sentence construction.

lol, you act like he's the only politician ever to demonstrate cognitive dissonance.

[Poopadoop]

lol, you act like he's the only politician ever to demonstrate cognitive dissonance.

You clearly don't understand what cognitive dissonance is, so probably best not to reference it.

[BananaStand]

You clearly don't understand what cognitive dissonance is, so probably best not to reference it.

oh please...enlighten me.

Explain to me how every other politician in the world is just hypocritical, but Trump's contradictions indicate a lack of coherent thought.

[Poopadoop]

oh please...enlighten me.

Explain to me how every other politician in the world is just hypocritical, but Trump's contradictions are evidence of incoherent stupidity.

Your continued demonstration of ignorance doesn't help your credibility.

Cognitive dissonance refers to the discomfort someone feels when their beliefs are contradicted by evidence. The classic response to this is to discount this conflicting evidence (this should be familiar to you in particular).

Trump is demonstrating nothing like this; what he's showing is in fact the opposite - a flaky willingness to change his stated opinion repeatedly, often depending on who is the last person he's spoken to.

[BananaStand]

I'm gonna go ahead and say I used 'cognitive dissonance' correctly.

Moving on....you seem to be saying that Trump doesn't have very deeply held convictions on a handful of policy issues. Fine. I'm not seeing how that makes him "incoherent"

[OngBonga]

Cognitive dissonance refers to the discomfort someone feels when their beliefs are contradicted by evidence.

Not quite. It's the discomfort felt when one simultaneously holds contradictory views. If someone is dismissing evidence, then they are not showing cognitive dissonance, since they reject the view the evidence supports. On the other hand, if you accept the evidence, and still hold the original view that the evidence refutes, now you're showing cognitive dissonance.

[Poopadoop]

Not quite. It's the discomfort felt when one simultaneously holds contradictory views. If someone is dismissing evidence, then they are not showing cognitive dissonance, since they reject the view the evidence supports. On the other hand, if you accept the evidence, and still hold the original view that the evidence refutes, now you're showing cognitive dissonance.

It doesn't really matter that you're wrong here, what matters is neither my definition or the wrong one you provide applies to Trump.

[Poopadoop]

Moving on....you seem to be saying that Trump doesn't have very deeply held convictions on a handful of policy issues. Fine. I'm not seeing how that makes him "incoherent"

You need coherence defined for you again? It's logical consistency. Now explain how stating conflicting opinions repeatedly, often within the same minute or two, is consistent.

[OngBonga]

Actually it's probably murkier than I make it seem.

If someone is dismissing evidence, it could be a defensive reflex. The dismissive attitude may be a result of congitive dissonance.

It depends really if the dismissal of evidence is sincere. If I refuse to believe hard proof of evolution because the Bible tells me otherwise, well so long as I truly believe the evidence is flawed, there's no cognitive dissonance. It's not a question of how compelling the evidence is, more a question of the psychology of the individual.

[OngBonga]

It doesn't really matter that you're wrong here, what matters is neither my definition or the wrong one you provide applies to Trump.

We're all wrong.

[Poopadoop]

No it's very simple. Cognitive dissonance refers to a feeling that arises when one's beliefs are contradicted by evidence.

Some of what you're describing are coping mechanisms for cognitive dissonance, which themselves are not cognitive dissonance.

What you're describing is like saying "Depression is a mental illness that results in low mood. Someone depressed might take prozac. Therefore depression is the act of taking prozac."

[OngBonga]

No it's very simple. Cognitive dissonance refers to a feeling that arises when one's beliefs are contradicted by evidence.

No this is not accurate. The "mental discomfort" aspect is correct, but it has little to do with evidence, rather being presented with evidence might trigger cognitive dissoance. But not necessarily.

google - the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change.

wikipedia - In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The occurrence of cognitive dissonance is a consequence of a person performing an action that contradicts personal beliefs, ideals, and values; and also occurs when confronted with new information that contradicts said beliefs, ideals, and values

Going back to my evolution analogy... if someone is presenting hard evidence, which I absolutely refute without any mental discomfort, where's the congitive dissoance? That "mental discomfort" is a consequence of an internal battle, knowing that one of the two beliefs held is wrong.

[OngBonga]

Merely being presented with evidence and being uncomfortable with it, that alone isn't cognitive dissoance. It could be social awkardness at having to debate opinions.

[Poopadoop]

Merely being presented with evidence and being uncomfortable with it, that alone isn't cognitive dissoance. It could be social awkardness at having to debate opinions.

Sorry but you're talking complete shit here. It doesn't help your case that you're providing google/wiki definitions. I am providing the one from cognitive psychology.

CD is nothing more or less than the uncomfortable feeling that arises when one's views are contradicted by evidence. It's an unpleasant feeling so people tend to try to reduce and/or eliminate it. Everything that happens after that is a coping mechanism, not the same as cognitive dissonance itself which is no more or less than the uncomfortable feeling.

[OngBonga]

To further illustrate...

cognition refers to the process of gaining knowledge through thought,
dissonance is a musical term meaning lack of harmony.

So it's a lack of harmony in one's mental learning process. One has to hold contradictory views, not merely feel mental discomfort. There's many reasons why someone might feel mental discomfort. Cognitive dissonance refers to mental discomfort caused by contradictory views, not simply by being presented evidence.

[OngBonga]

Ok so to poop the religious nut who doesn't want to debate creationism is showing congnitive dissonance.

[Poopadoop]

Ok so to poop the religious nut who doesn't want to debate creationism is showing congnitive dissonance.

They're demonstrating a coping response to cognitive dissonance. CD is the unpleasant feeling of logical inconsistency that they are trying to reduce/eliminate.

[OngBonga]

They're demonstrating a coping response to cognitive dissonance.

They might be.

CD is the unpleasant feeling of logical inconsistency that they are trying to reduce/eliminate.

Here you make my point. "logical inconsistency"... ie... contradictory views.

If they (sincerely) dismiss the evidence, there's no "logical inconsistency". The religious nut is being consistent, unless deep down he's absorbing the evidence and it is somewhat compelling.

[OngBonga]

You know what? We're both right, we're just splitting hairs.

[BananaStand]

You know what? We're both right, we're just splitting hairs.

That's poop's favorite game!!

[Poopadoop]

They might be.



Here you make my point. "logical inconsistency"... ie... contradictory views.

If they (sincerely) dismiss the evidence, there's no "logical inconsistency". The religious nut is being consistent, unless deep down he's absorbing the evidence and it is somewhat compelling.

But a person cannot hold contradictory views at the same instant in time. They can switch back and forth between views that are logically inconsistent, but whatever their last experienced view is, that's the one they can be said to hold.

The person who holds an irrational view (e.g., flat earthers for the sake of argument), who is then presented with compelling evidence their view is wrong (the earth is round), will experience CD because the evidence conflicts with their view. They might try to reduce that feeling by discounting the evidence, and that would be an example of a coping mechanism used to combat the unpleasant feeling of CD.

In terms of being coherent or not, it's not that a person is somehow trying to believe logically inconsistent views at the same time. That's impossible. Their belief is one or the other at any given moment. The logical incoherence comes when they repeatedly switch back and forth between different beliefs in the absence of compelling evidence.

E.g., If A believes 'X is true', and B comes along and says 'X is false' without providing any evidence for why X is false, then A is being incoherent if they immediately change their tune to 'ok, now i think X is false'.

[Poopadoop]

E.g., If A believes 'X is true', and B comes along and says 'X is false' without providing any evidence for why X is false, then A is being incoherent if they immediately change their tune to 'ok, now i think X is false'.

...which is pretty much what Trump is doing in his interview with O'Reilly I posted earlier, and why he is being mocked by Pakman.

[BananaStand]

...which is pretty much what Trump is doing in his interview with O'Reilly I posted earlier, and why he is being mocked by Pakman.

False. I'm actually stunned that you watched that clip and don't know what Trump's firm, non-contradictory, policy is on minimum wage.

I would say that your statement here is evidence of incompetence and poor comprehension on your part.

Now tell me, does cognitive dissonance hurt?

[Poopadoop]

False. I'm actually stunned that you watched that clip and don't know what Trump's firm, non-contradictory, policy is on minimum wage.

I would say that your statement here is evidence of incompetence and poor comprehension on your part.

Now tell me, does cognitive dissonance hurt?

There's no CD here because as usual your argument is not compelling.

[Poopadoop]

Now tell me, does cognitive dissonance hurt?

You seem to be better placed to answer this question.

1. In the O'Reilly video, Trump is asked about MW. He waffles a bit about how we need a minimum wage.

2 O'Reilly keeps asking him questions like 'should it be this?' 'but shouldn't it do that?' and Trump basically just goes along with whatever BOR says.

3. Banana believes Trump is a stable genius who must therefore have coherent views on policy.

4. Poop provides evidence that is not the case (the BOR video).

5. Banana dismisses the video evidence with the usual reflexive banana counter-argument 'zomg i can't believe it!' without any justification or rationale whatsoever.

6. Banana's CD gets reduced.

[BananaStand]

There's no CD here because as usual your argument is not compelling.

^ symptom of cognitive dissonance

[BananaStand]

DJT: Minimum wage should be controlled by the states

BOR: What about federal

(dumb question because if all 50 states have an overriding minimum wage, the federal MW doesn't mean shit)

DJT: Fine, I guess we'll have a federal one, even thought it's totally useless and irrelevant, which is why I don't really give a fuck about this question.

BOR: how about 10 bucks

DJT: Fine, whatever.


What's incoherent about that?

[BananaStand]

The video alleges that Trump has 5 different positions on minimum wage. The graphic at 1:58 of the video lists them

1) Let states decide [they pick whatever wage they want]

this is Trump's clearly articulated view on minimum wage. It's not one of five different positions, it's his only position

2. There does not have to be a federal minimum wage [at all]

This is totally consistent with the previous position. If states set MW, then the fed doesn't need to. I'm not sure why this counts as a separate position. But David Pakman needs his clicks, so here we are.

3. I would leave it, and raise it somewhat

Still totally consistent and coherent. States set the minimum wage, the fed mw is useless. Just because he doesn't say that he's going to go to all of the trouble of formally repealing the federal minimum wage, doesn't mean that he's taken a new position

4. I would set the minimum wage to $10/hour

As noted above, Trump's policy does not include formal repeal of the federal minimum wage. So the federal mw has to be *something*. BOR asked him what it should be, and Trump said it should be $10/hour. We have not strayed from any single policy. We're not filling in blanks. We're not guessing. We're not witnessing incoherent babbling

5. Let the states pick whatever minimum wage they want [makes a federal minimum wage pointless]

I'm wondering why Poop likes to shit on Trump supporters for having to "fill in the blanks" and "guess" what he really means. Meanwhile Mr. Pakman and all his bracketed additions to Trump's actual statements [filling in blanks with guesses] are perfectly fine!!?? El oh el my friend. Anyway....this is just a reiteration of #1, which to me, and every other intelligent person in the universe, demonstrates consistency and coherence.


Seems to me that Mr. Pakman is assuming that Trump's policy of states managing the minimum wage would also include a formal repeal of the federal minimum wage. That's the only way his subsequent statements of preserving the federal minimum would be contradictory. Yet nowhere, anywhere, did Trump articulate anything about repealing the federal minimum wage policy.

[wufwugy]

...which is pretty much what Trump is doing in his interview with O'Reilly I posted earlier, and why he is being mocked by Pakman.

I have a bone to pick with him, because he has a degree in economics, as do I, and he is bad at economics.

[wufwugy]

Even if Trump seems incoherent to one person, note that many millions of people (including at least 4 people on this forum) find him coherent.

[Poopadoop]

Even if Trump seems incoherent to one person, note that many millions of people (including at least 4 people on this forum) find him coherent.

Evidence?

Also, it seems like it's more than one person saying he's incoherent.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=w....0.YapBbzYX3nw

[wufwugy]

Is your perception that people who say (act) like they find him coherent actually don't?

[Poopadoop]

Is your perception that people who say (act) like they find him coherent actually don't?

I don't have that kind of insight into other's thoughts.

But you didn't answer my question - what is the evidence that millions of people find him coherent?

[wufwugy]

But you didn't answer my question - what is the evidence that millions of people find him coherent?

You already have it.

[Poopadoop]

You already have it.

Do you mean because they voted for him? Why does that prove they find him coherent?

[BananaStand]

https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=w....0.YapBbzYX3nw

The top results come from:

Vox
Vox
Google
John Oliver
The independent
And the Washington Post.

Nice bi-partisan consensus you've got there, lol

[BananaStand]

Do you mean because they voted for him? Why does that prove they find him coherent?

Do you really think it's possible to be a "babbling idiot" unable to form coherent thought consistently and still be elected President? He gave speeches and rallies daily. A camera was up his ass 20 hours a day. He debated a dozen and a half supremely qualified people. And won.

If you're still gonna cling to this position of 'incoherence', then please explain how it's possible to be babbling idiot and still gain the support of 60 million voters?

[CoccoBill]

The top results come from:

Vox
Vox
Google
John Oliver
The independent
And the Washington Post.

Nice bi-partisan consensus you've got there, lol

http://www.breitbart.com/immigration...n-immigration/
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/...to-masses.html

[BananaStand]

http://www.breitbart.com/immigration...n-immigration/
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/...to-masses.html

The first link is 3 years old!! Scott Walker was still in the fucking race then. It's not surprising that the right-wing of the party and it's "never Trump" mantra bought into the anti-Trump rhetoric

The second link you posted....destroys your own argument!!!

But there may be a good reason why this seeming incoherence hasn't hurt Trump in the Republican run for the presidential nomination: Trump's talk mirrors typical conversation, bolstering his status as an honest outsider.

his conversational style may also help construct an identity for him as authentic, relatable and trustworthy, which are qualities that voters look for in a presidential candidate

Trump's style is different from that of most modern public speakers. He has an especially repetitive style,......Trump's response included variations of the phrase "bomb all these sites" three times in quick succession:

Drain the Swamp! Drain the Swamp! Drain the Swamp!
Build a wall! Build a wall! Build a wall!
Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!

How can communication be "incoherent" if it is understood, and resonates, with so many people??

[Poopadoop]

Do you really think it's possible to be a "babbling idiot" unable to form coherent thought consistently and still be elected President?

Did you ever hear of a guy named George W Bush?

Not only is it possible, there's a clear precedent.

[Poopadoop]

The top results come from:

Vox
Vox
Google
John Oliver
The independent
And the Washington Post.

Nice bi-partisan consensus you've got there, lol

Yeah, funny how it's the left-wing media largely commenting on his incoherence and not the right.

Fucking genius analysis there bud.

[OngBonga]

Yeah, funny how it's the left-wing media largely finding him incoherent and not the right.

fyp

[Poopadoop]

fyp

I'm fine with that too.

He could give a speech in Navajo and the RWM would go 'great speech by the president!'

[BananaStand]

Yeah, funny how it's the left-wing media largely commenting on his incoherence and not the right.

incorrect, your buddy Bill blew that up. Right-wingers jumped on the "incoherent" bandwagon too.

Isn't it funny how it's only the people politically served by incoherence claiming incoherence.