3 ms·

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-navarro/trump-adviser-navarro-violated-law-against-political-activity-federal-watchdog-idUSKBN28H2OU https://www

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-navarro/trump-adviser-navarro-violated-law-against-political-activity-federal-watchdog-idUSKBN28H2OU https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-navarro/trum... https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/24/controversial-gun-advocate-justice-department-440251 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/24/controversial-gun-a... If your sources for "proof" are from anyone that is pro-Trump and repeatedly tears into Trumps opposition, you might want to start with the assumption that motivated reasoning is in play. You can be well-educated, and still have a bias and be inclined to argue for your side to win.

throwaway33292 6y ago
I’m aware of the politics of the authors. Both articles you posted amount to ad homs. Neither even attempt to engage with the evidence presented in the reports.
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> you might want to start with the assumption that motivated reasoning is in play. You can be well-educated, and still have a bias and be inclined to argue for your side to win. yes, this is the human condition and applies equally to both sides of this debate.
foolinaround 6y ago
Would'nt the opposite be true as well? If so, where do we start?