Do Facts hurt the contemporary political debate?

[pknopp]

I have been listening to TED talks and have stumbled across some sources of studying performed regarding what happens when we introduce even the simplest facts into a debate. One would hope in an ideal world that if the person reading the facts (assuming proper citation and simple mathematical prove/disprove scenario) would take the moment to digest the material and then either offer their own interpretation of those facts, concede, or move on tangentially like so many of us do with politics. HOWEVER, the studies out today could suggest how Conservatives Vs Liberals react to intro of facts into a debate.
Statements (opinions rather) ranging from national security to healthcare to general constitutionality, that were considered to be liberal, were placed in front of a number of random Trump voters who considered themselves conservative. Half of the participants were given statements that were simply book-ended with pro-patriotic statements- (a), and the other half were left unadulterated and included factual data/charts to back up each opinion/claim (b) (remember the conclusion left by a normal reader would deduce that regardless of the format they are both essentially saying the same thing). The conservatives that were presented (a) showed a massively higher support even to the point of moving the needle to moderate to liberal views on things like gun control and healthcare etc, while the conservatives that were presented (b) tended to actually state that their original position has now become even more polarized to the Right after being forced to read what was essentially the same exact thing.
So the question is, If you consider yourself conservative and I start putting in what most would consider reputable facts/numbers to help my case, would you feel a quick urge to pull away? Should I stay in lighter water and use fact-free language to have a better chance at moving the needle toward the middle? Please take a moment if you have one to select one of the three options for a quick poll. Thanks.

Real facts are fine. Crap from Wing Nut Daily or the Palmer Report?

Nope.

To note......opinions are indeed not facts.

 

[pknopp]

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

Sure, that is why we are the party for the "rich", because "rich" folks are incapable of competently processing information. After all, being successful doesn't involve any competency. We all just got lucky in life.

Case in point.

Logic and consistency is not a hallmark of the liberal platform. I wouldn't expect you to understand.

It's not a hallmark of either party.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's an interesting idea. I've personally tried many different approaches with little success.
Cons are far too fragile. They don't accept anything as fact. Especially when they feel boxed in by them. They exist soley in their preconceived realities.
Without having read any of the comments, I would guess you won't get a straight answer. They will no doubt reject the premise outright.

funny you bitch about stereotypes while in the middle of doing it.

i gave him a straight answer. you just laughed. i rest my case.

I said nothing of stereotypes let alone "bitched" about them.

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

And Republicans believe Democrats have problems processing information competently. I see it as both parties see it their way and damn the facts. Real liberals and real conservatives are open to dialogue. There are few real liberals or real conservatives, that is the problem.

Then you're not paying attention. The OP outlined a study focused on conservatives and how they react to facts when presented.
Saying "nuh-uh" or "they both do it" does not address the point. If anything, it reinforces the findings of the study.

The study is ludicrous. You could do the same study in another country with a different group of people and get the same result. The point of the study was to try to paint Conservatives in a bad light. It is rather obvious.

That is not obvious at all. The study made no such judgement. You did.

 

[Olde Europe]

Right, you are going to ignore the facts. I asked you a simple question. You ignored it and made the reply about me. This is why Trump is president.

Your "question" was neither sensible, nor pertinent to this thread, nor was it "simple". Rather, it was simplistic. This thread is just another venue you've chosen to spread your mantra. Since your mantra is all about you (and your mission), of course it's all about you. Yeah, but this is "why Trump is president" is hilarity, squared.

Since you have nothing to say about the subject of the thread - you know, conservatives and their unfortunate encounters with facts and other spiky things - why don't you just slink out?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

Sure, that is why we are the party for the "rich", because "rich" folks are incapable of competently processing information. After all, being successful doesn't involve any competency. We all just got lucky in life.

Case in point.

Logic and consistency is not a hallmark of the liberal platform. I wouldn't expect you to understand.

I understand your attempted deflection.

 

[Papageorgio]

what's stupid is you don't see the left doing the very same thing. people, by nature, stereotype. this isn't right or left, it's all of us.

anything short of that is just you being ignorant of habits everyone shares.

You know, iceberg, you are right. We shouldn't be talking about "the left" (see above), or "the right", for that matter.

That doesn't change the fact that the current thread concerned itself with a study on conservatives being treated to facts, and their reaction to them. Do tell, since you seem to be struggling for some sort of reasonably grounded perspective: Do you find a lot of your fellow conservatives are generally exhibiting a decent respect for facts?

How do you come to that conclusion. Fact, no study was cited. Fact, if study was conducted, what was the bias of the study. What was the goal of the study? Tons of other questions remain about the study, however you are quick to bite that is a factual study. Why? Because it fits your agenda.

I have been listening to TED talks and have stumbled across some sources of studying performed regarding what happens when we introduce even the simplest facts into a debate. One would hope in an ideal world that if the person reading the facts (assuming proper citation and simple mathematical prove/disprove scenario) would take the moment to digest the material and then either offer their own interpretation of those facts, concede, or move on tangentially like so many of us do with politics. HOWEVER, the studies out today could suggest how Conservatives Vs Liberals react to intro of facts into a debate.
Statements (opinions rather) ranging from national security to healthcare to general constitutionality, that were considered to be liberal, were placed in front of a number of random Trump voters who considered themselves conservative. Half of the participants were given statements that were simply book-ended with pro-patriotic statements- (a), and the other half were left unadulterated and included factual data/charts to back up each opinion/claim (b) (remember the conclusion left by a normal reader would deduce that regardless of the format they are both essentially saying the same thing). The conservatives that were presented (a) showed a massively higher support even to the point of moving the needle to moderate to liberal views on things like gun control and healthcare etc, while the conservatives that were presented (b) tended to actually state that their original position has now become even more polarized to the Right after being forced to read what was essentially the same exact thing.
So the question is, If you consider yourself conservative and I start putting in what most would consider reputable facts/numbers to help my case, would you feel a quick urge to pull away? Should I stay in lighter water and use fact-free language to have a better chance at moving the needle toward the middle? Please take a moment if you have one to select one of the three options for a quick poll. Thanks.

It's an interesting idea. I've personally tried many different approaches with little success.
Cons are far too fragile. They don't accept anything as fact. Especially when they feel boxed in by them. They exist soley in their preconceived realities.
Without having read any of the comments, I would guess you won't get a straight answer. They will no doubt reject the premise outright.

funny you bitch about stereotypes while in the middle of doing it.

i gave him a straight answer. you just laughed. i rest my case.

I said nothing of stereotypes let alone "bitched" about them.

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

And Republicans believe Democrats have problems processing information competently. I see it as both parties see it their way and damn the facts. Real liberals and real conservatives are open to dialogue. There are few real liberals or real conservatives, that is the problem.

Then you're not paying attention. The OP outlined a study focused on conservatives and how they react to facts when presented.
Saying "nuh-uh" or "they both do it" does not address the point. If anything, it reinforces the findings of the study.

I am paying attention. You have a poster that has had only 50 posts since 2015, come on the board, claims he has a study, provides no link to the study, provides no source of the study, we don't know if there was a study, we don't know who conducted the study, we have no idea of the agenda of the study, yet you accept it as fact? The only reason you do, it is because it fits your agenda.

Seems that you don't really need facts, you just proved the study if the word was left instead of conservative. Thanks.

 

[The Original Tree]

When you have a Nazi president throwing people into concentration camps, the time for polite discussion with people who live in their own reality is over.

Obama was President when Chicago became a Concentration Camp for it's own Citizens, and still remains so today.

 

[pknopp]

Right, you are going to ignore the facts. I asked you a simple question. You ignored it and made the reply about me. This is why Trump is president.

Your "question" was neither sensible, nor pertinent to this thread, nor was it "simple". Rather, it was simplistic. This thread is just another venue you've chosen to spread your mantra. Since your mantra is all about you (and your mission), of course it's all about you. Yeah, but this is "why Trump is president" is hilarity, squared.

My "mission" is not about me.

Since you have nothing to say about the subject of the thread - you know, conservatives and their unfortunate encounters with facts and other spiky things - why don't you just slink out?

What do you think about Obama's wars?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

what's stupid is you don't see the left doing the very same thing. people, by nature, stereotype. this isn't right or left, it's all of us.

anything short of that is just you being ignorant of habits everyone shares.

You know, iceberg, you are right. We shouldn't be talking about "the left" (see above), or "the right", for that matter.

That doesn't change the fact that the current thread concerned itself with a study on conservatives being treated to facts, and their reaction to them. Do tell, since you seem to be struggling for some sort of reasonably grounded perspective: Do you find a lot of your fellow conservatives are generally exhibiting a decent respect for facts?

How do you come to that conclusion. Fact, no study was cited. Fact, if study was conducted, what was the bias of the study. What was the goal of the study? Tons of other questions remain about the study, however you are quick to bite that is a factual study. Why? Because it fits your agenda.

It's an interesting idea. I've personally tried many different approaches with little success.
Cons are far too fragile. They don't accept anything as fact. Especially when they feel boxed in by them. They exist soley in their preconceived realities.
Without having read any of the comments, I would guess you won't get a straight answer. They will no doubt reject the premise outright.

funny you bitch about stereotypes while in the middle of doing it.

i gave him a straight answer. you just laughed. i rest my case.

I said nothing of stereotypes let alone "bitched" about them.

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

And Republicans believe Democrats have problems processing information competently. I see it as both parties see it their way and damn the facts. Real liberals and real conservatives are open to dialogue. There are few real liberals or real conservatives, that is the problem.

Then you're not paying attention. The OP outlined a study focused on conservatives and how they react to facts when presented.
Saying "nuh-uh" or "they both do it" does not address the point. If anything, it reinforces the findings of the study.

I am paying attention. You have a poster that has had only 50 posts since 2015, come on the board, claims he has a study, provides no link to the study, provides no source of the study, we don't know if there was a study, we don't know who conducted the study, we have no idea of the agenda of the study, yet you accept it as fact? The only reason you do, it is because it fits your agenda.

Seems that you don't really need facts, you just proved the study if the word was left instead of conservative. Thanks.

Of course none of that is relevant to the point.

 

[Papageorgio]

what's stupid is you don't see the left doing the very same thing. people, by nature, stereotype. this isn't right or left, it's all of us.

anything short of that is just you being ignorant of habits everyone shares.

You know, iceberg, you are right. We shouldn't be talking about "the left" (see above), or "the right", for that matter.

That doesn't change the fact that the current thread concerned itself with a study on conservatives being treated to facts, and their reaction to them. Do tell, since you seem to be struggling for some sort of reasonably grounded perspective: Do you find a lot of your fellow conservatives are generally exhibiting a decent respect for facts?

How do you come to that conclusion. Fact, no study was cited. Fact, if study was conducted, what was the bias of the study. What was the goal of the study? Tons of other questions remain about the study, however you are quick to bite that is a factual study. Why? Because it fits your agenda.

funny you bitch about stereotypes while in the middle of doing it.

i gave him a straight answer. you just laughed. i rest my case.

I said nothing of stereotypes let alone "bitched" about them.

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

And Republicans believe Democrats have problems processing information competently. I see it as both parties see it their way and damn the facts. Real liberals and real conservatives are open to dialogue. There are few real liberals or real conservatives, that is the problem.

Then you're not paying attention. The OP outlined a study focused on conservatives and how they react to facts when presented.
Saying "nuh-uh" or "they both do it" does not address the point. If anything, it reinforces the findings of the study.

I am paying attention. You have a poster that has had only 50 posts since 2015, come on the board, claims he has a study, provides no link to the study, provides no source of the study, we don't know if there was a study, we don't know who conducted the study, we have no idea of the agenda of the study, yet you accept it as fact? The only reason you do, it is because it fits your agenda.

Seems that you don't really need facts, you just proved the study if the word was left instead of conservative. Thanks.

Of course none of that is relevant to the point.

I had just as many facts as the OP. You proved the point. Irreverent to the facts, you took this study as fact. There is absolutely no proof this study was ever conducted. You took it on as a fact, why were you so excited to take this on as fact? Maybe it matches ideology?

 

[Papageorgio]

funny you bitch about stereotypes while in the middle of doing it.

i gave him a straight answer. you just laughed. i rest my case.

I said nothing of stereotypes let alone "bitched" about them.

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

And Republicans believe Democrats have problems processing information competently. I see it as both parties see it their way and damn the facts. Real liberals and real conservatives are open to dialogue. There are few real liberals or real conservatives, that is the problem.

Then you're not paying attention. The OP outlined a study focused on conservatives and how they react to facts when presented.
Saying "nuh-uh" or "they both do it" does not address the point. If anything, it reinforces the findings of the study.

The study is ludicrous. You could do the same study in another country with a different group of people and get the same result. The point of the study was to try to paint Conservatives in a bad light. It is rather obvious.

That is not obvious at all. The study made no such judgement. You did.

What study? Was there in fact a study? You have one guy's word that aligns with your belief system and it is now a fact? Do you know the bias of the group or individual that made the study, if it was actually made? Why are you accepting that it is a fact when there is no proof?

 

[Mac1958]

There are two critical issues at play here.

First, the split of our "media" (ahem) has created two separate news and information universes. Trump and right wing media have successfully trained many on the Right to automatically ignore, avoid and dismiss any facts they don't like as untrustworthy "fake news". Then, only "news", "facts" and "information" that support the macro rightwing/Trump agenda are allowed in to that universe. This has, stunningly, isolated this group into its own informational closed circuit. In all fairness, the mainstream media has brought much of this on itself with its long-time left-leaning reporting. Right wing media seized, and continues to seize, on that to keep the fires stoked.

Second, and this is just as disturbing, it's possible it's been so long that we communicated honestly and factually and civilly, that we may have lost the skill to do so. I saw this theory a couple of years ago and it blew my mind. It may be that those skills are like muscles - use them or lose them. Everyone is screaming and taking sides, no one is really listening. We've fallen so far down into the rabbit hole - hyperbole, distortion, personal attacks, on and on - that we may not have the capacity any more to escape it.

Either one of those conditions are as serious as many major issues. But both of them together? We can't even agree on facts, and we can't even communicate. This is bad.
.

Gawd almighty...

This was a thread about how conservatives respond to facts presented to them which might - scratch that - inevitably will run counter to their preferred narratives, contingent on the way in which these facts are being presented. This was not - NOT - yet another opportunity to ride your (long dead, BTW) hobby horse all over he place. Putting your predetermined conclusion in bold face doesn't make it true. It just demonstrates that, no matter how often your skewed perspective and your delusions are pointed out to you, you won't listen, and just insist on the aforementioned conclusions more stridently, insulting everybody's intelligence yet again.

what's stupid is you don't see the left doing the very same thing. people, by nature, stereotype. this isn't right or left, it's all of us.

anything short of that is just you being ignorant of habits everyone shares.

Those are two of the primary symptoms of the affliction: Intellectual myopia and binary thinking.

Those stricken simply won't be a part of any constructive conversation. It is what it is.
.

 

[iceberg]

I have been listening to TED talks and have stumbled across some sources of studying performed regarding what happens when we introduce even the simplest facts into a debate. One would hope in an ideal world that if the person reading the facts (assuming proper citation and simple mathematical prove/disprove scenario) would take the moment to digest the material and then either offer their own interpretation of those facts, concede, or move on tangentially like so many of us do with politics. HOWEVER, the studies out today could suggest how Conservatives Vs Liberals react to intro of facts into a debate.
Statements (opinions rather) ranging from national security to healthcare to general constitutionality, that were considered to be liberal, were placed in front of a number of random Trump voters who considered themselves conservative. Half of the participants were given statements that were simply book-ended with pro-patriotic statements- (a), and the other half were left unadulterated and included factual data/charts to back up each opinion/claim (b) (remember the conclusion left by a normal reader would deduce that regardless of the format they are both essentially saying the same thing). The conservatives that were presented (a) showed a massively higher support even to the point of moving the needle to moderate to liberal views on things like gun control and healthcare etc, while the conservatives that were presented (b) tended to actually state that their original position has now become even more polarized to the Right after being forced to read what was essentially the same exact thing.
So the question is, If you consider yourself conservative and I start putting in what most would consider reputable facts/numbers to help my case, would you feel a quick urge to pull away? Should I stay in lighter water and use fact-free language to have a better chance at moving the needle toward the middle? Please take a moment if you have one to select one of the three options for a quick poll. Thanks.

It's an interesting idea. I've personally tried many different approaches with little success.
Cons are far too fragile. They don't accept anything as fact. Especially when they feel boxed in by them. They exist soley in their preconceived realities.
Without having read any of the comments, I would guess you won't get a straight answer. They will no doubt reject the premise outright.

funny you bitch about stereotypes while in the middle of doing it.

i gave him a straight answer. you just laughed. i rest my case.

I said nothing of stereotypes let alone "bitched" about them.

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

"the problem with the cons" - stereotype
"cons are far too fragile" is a stereotype you wish to push.
"they don't accept anything as fact" is a stereotype
"they feel" - stereotype
They exist soley" - stereotype

you can't and won't treat people as individuals. you group people up into your own categories and address them as such. it fucking sucks dude.

hell all you do is stereotype and then get pissed off when people push back and say they're not who you think they are and you dive straight to DOPE YOU ARE WHO I THINK YOU ARE!!!! even though they say they're not, don't agree with what you SAY they agree with, and certainly don't feel like you ASSUME they do BECAUSE you stereotype.

all i can say at this point is you just don't understand what a stereotype is. along with 18 million other things but this one is screaming from you right now.

 

[iceberg]

I have been listening to TED talks and have stumbled across some sources of studying performed regarding what happens when we introduce even the simplest facts into a debate. One would hope in an ideal world that if the person reading the facts (assuming proper citation and simple mathematical prove/disprove scenario) would take the moment to digest the material and then either offer their own interpretation of those facts, concede, or move on tangentially like so many of us do with politics. HOWEVER, the studies out today could suggest how Conservatives Vs Liberals react to intro of facts into a debate.
Statements (opinions rather) ranging from national security to healthcare to general constitutionality, that were considered to be liberal, were placed in front of a number of random Trump voters who considered themselves conservative. Half of the participants were given statements that were simply book-ended with pro-patriotic statements- (a), and the other half were left unadulterated and included factual data/charts to back up each opinion/claim (b) (remember the conclusion left by a normal reader would deduce that regardless of the format they are both essentially saying the same thing). The conservatives that were presented (a) showed a massively higher support even to the point of moving the needle to moderate to liberal views on things like gun control and healthcare etc, while the conservatives that were presented (b) tended to actually state that their original position has now become even more polarized to the Right after being forced to read what was essentially the same exact thing.
So the question is, If you consider yourself conservative and I start putting in what most would consider reputable facts/numbers to help my case, would you feel a quick urge to pull away? Should I stay in lighter water and use fact-free language to have a better chance at moving the needle toward the middle? Please take a moment if you have one to select one of the three options for a quick poll. Thanks.

Real facts are fine. Crap from Wing Nut Daily or the Palmer Report?

Nope.

That's the crux of the dynamic. The ability to process information competently so as to discern fact from fiction. Reality over narrative.

Barr's narrative of the Mueller report vs Mueller's testimony is a perfect example.

or you could also say the lefts narrative of russia that fell flat in "reality" so they rush to "obstruction" cause there was no COLLUSION.

someone seeing something differently than you doesn't make you right, them wrong anymore then it makes them right and you wrong. however, you have proven to be incapable of putting your own viewpoints away to look at someone elses. you just do your scream shout DOPE crap.

 

[SAYIT]

I have been listening to TED talks and have stumbled across some sources of studying performed regarding what happens when we introduce even the simplest facts into a debate. One would hope in an ideal world that if the person reading the facts (assuming proper citation and simple mathematical prove/disprove scenario) would take the moment to digest the material and then either offer their own interpretation of those facts, concede, or move on tangentially like so many of us do with politics. HOWEVER, the studies out today could suggest how Conservatives Vs Liberals react to intro of facts into a debate.
Statements (opinions rather) ranging from national security to healthcare to general constitutionality, that were considered to be liberal, were placed in front of a number of random Trump voters who considered themselves conservative. Half of the participants were given statements that were simply book-ended with pro-patriotic statements- (a), and the other half were left unadulterated and included factual data/charts to back up each opinion/claim (b) (remember the conclusion left by a normal reader would deduce that regardless of the format they are both essentially saying the same thing). The conservatives that were presented (a) showed a massively higher support even to the point of moving the needle to moderate to liberal views on things like gun control and healthcare etc, while the conservatives that were presented (b) tended to actually state that their original position has now become even more polarized to the Right after being forced to read what was essentially the same exact thing.
So the question is, If you consider yourself conservative and I start putting in what most would consider reputable facts/numbers to help my case, would you feel a quick urge to pull away? Should I stay in lighter water and use fact-free language to have a better chance at moving the needle toward the middle? Please take a moment if you have one to select one of the three options for a quick poll. Thanks.

So, this was aimed at conservatives, but where are you studies using the same techniques on Democrats?

Or a link to the "study" referenced?

 

[iceberg]

what's stupid is you don't see the left doing the very same thing. people, by nature, stereotype. this isn't right or left, it's all of us.

anything short of that is just you being ignorant of habits everyone shares.

You know, iceberg, you are right. We shouldn't be talking about "the left" (see above), or "the right", for that matter.

That doesn't change the fact that the current thread concerned itself with a study on conservatives being treated to facts, and their reaction to them. Do tell, since you seem to be struggling for some sort of reasonably grounded perspective: Do you find a lot of your fellow conservatives are generally exhibiting a decent respect for facts?

now on this i would say you have a point as i am guilty it would seem of doing what i'm bitching about. fair is fair and that's a fair point.

there are times you can't help but speak in general terms to at least get things started. when you live and breath in such a thought process is when you get stagnant and don't open up your mind to what the other person is trying to say.

we all react to "facts" differently. this isn't left based, right based, or the like. it's more how we've been brought up and our own experiences in these matters that come to play in how we react. you can choose to live in LEFT/RIGHT and see things in binary and only binary terms, or you can put that down and talk directly to people and not inject your own views of stereotypes on someone else to defend - ESP if they've never said they supported something you assume they do BECAUSE of stereotypes.

so yes, you have a point. just don't stop there and think that's all i have to offer. when someone speaks in generic terms, i'll do the same. i can also list traits that are common to either side as well. however, i won't take it further and categorize people as LEFT/RIGHT and insist they believe all that the stereotypes believe.

I don't fit one mold. You don't either. None of us do. Yet we treat others to be far more simple than they really are usually out of our own frustrations and/or convenience.

 

[iceberg]

I said nothing of stereotypes let alone "bitched" about them.

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

And Republicans believe Democrats have problems processing information competently. I see it as both parties see it their way and damn the facts. Real liberals and real conservatives are open to dialogue. There are few real liberals or real conservatives, that is the problem.

Then you're not paying attention. The OP outlined a study focused on conservatives and how they react to facts when presented.
Saying "nuh-uh" or "they both do it" does not address the point. If anything, it reinforces the findings of the study.

The study is ludicrous. You could do the same study in another country with a different group of people and get the same result. The point of the study was to try to paint Conservatives in a bad light. It is rather obvious.

That is not obvious at all. The study made no such judgement. You did.

What study? Was there in fact a study? You have one guy's word that aligns with your belief system and it is now a fact? Do you know the bias of the group or individual that made the study, if it was actually made? Why are you accepting that it is a fact when there is no proof?

because PEOPLE tend to use things that validate their mindset w/o question and question the things that don't. HUMAN trait we all share.

 

[jc456]

When you have a Nazi president throwing people into concentration camps, the time for polite discussion with people who live in their own reality is over.

where are the concentration camps? I know of Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Ferguson, and dems run those.

 

[jc456]

Well i guess if I was polling non-conservatives you would have selected option three. I included that for a reason out of general curiosity of what people who are actually using a non-facebook outlet feel about diplomacy.

I'm sorry, are there any "conservatives" left?

We have "Libertarians" supporting protectionism and concentration camps.

We have "Family value" voters who are coming up with reason why a man who cheated on all three of his wives and paid off porn stars is really a good Christian.

We have "Security" voters who are now perfectly okay with the fact that the Russians are openly subverting our election process.

So what do conservatives stand for anymore exactly?

again, the dems run the concentration camps in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Ferguson. you should go complain to the dems.

 

[SAYIT]

When you have a Nazi president throwing people into concentration camps, the time for polite discussion with people who live in their own reality is over.

Indeed, one cannot reason with those who believe such silliness.

Truth is often subjective, like: “A cow's heaven is a flower's idea of hell.”

I was speaking more towards like if I submitted a graph of the deficit as a function of GDP over the past 10-30 years as a longitudinal look at our economy. Not as much as subjective statements like a cow's heaven.

Even numbers - as any honest economist would admit - can be skewed to provide a desired conclusion.

You can start by being honest, then respectful... By not providing a balanced look at any issue, you are in fact, trying to frame a discussion in your favor...

The point of the thread is simply to identify myself as someone who came across some studies to suggest correlation with dressing up talking points vs listing objective factual data...

Again, even "factual data" can be spun to create a desired conclusion and in answer to what seems to be your question, most adult posters have formed theirs based on extensive experience (and even research) and will not be swayed by another's opinion of a single point.