5 ms·

You are assuming "they" trust the Republican leadership. this Gallup poll says only 12% of Americans trust congress. https://news.gallup.com/poll/352316/ameri

You are assuming "they" trust the Republican leadership. this Gallup poll says only 12% of Americans trust congress. https://news.gallup.com/poll/352316/americans-confidence-major-institutions-dips.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/352316/americans-confidence-maj... Lots of other interesting tidbits about trust in there...

dragontamer 5y ago
These people who don't trust masks trust ivermectin. Just... talk with them. Its obvious. There's one political party pushing ivermectin as a solution, and the other one doesn't. They want "their side" to be correct on this issue. They don't trust masks because masks were chosen by "the other side". They don't trust vaccines (despite being pushed by Operation Warp Speed by Mr. Trump) because someone else became president and started pushing vaccines. It was historically liberals who hated vaccines, not conservatives. Conservatives were the ones making lynch mobs to forcibly vaccinate people (still an ugly history there but... seriously. The entire political world has flipped upside down). -------- This isn't about the message. Its 100% about who trusts who, and who trusts what. This is a problem of ethos, not of facts or logos.
- greenail 5y ago
  My post had nothing to do with any party affiliation. I was simply pointing out the data regarding where trust in our institutions is. Please ratchet the "they"/"other" stuff back a bit. I don't think it is helping us trust each other.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    And my post is about the reality of our politics today. People distrust masks but trust ivermectin. Why? Because certain leaders in certain political thoughts are pushing anti-mask and pro-ivermectin messages. Its that simple. There's no need to mince words. People trust their leaders. If it helps, its the same reason why some liberals are all "Screw the rich", because they trust Bernie Sanders. No one likes __Congress__ as an institution, but everyone likes their particular Senator/House rep. If not, those people would be immediately voted out. Its all the _OTHER_ reps that people don't like in Congress. Just as the institution was designed. That's how its supposed to work: you don't like the reps who push for stuff in their state/interests (but not your state and/or interests)... but you like the guy who represents your state/interests. Perhaps I'm being too brutalistic or simple. But its really how I see things.
    - greenail 5y ago
      > People distrust masks but trust ivermectin. source? It may also be useful to disambiguate anti-vaxers from anti-vax-mandate-ers. I think they have fundamentally different arguments. >but everyone likes their particular Senator/House rep. everyone? > That's how its supposed to work: I doubt that the founders intended to build a system only 12% of people supported but maybe...
      - dragontamer 5y ago
        > I doubt that the founders intended to build a system only 12% of people supported but maybe... The founders absolutely intended for Congress to be the "we like our guy but dislike every other guy" situation. 100%. In fact, that's 100% evident in the design of the electoral college. We were _supposed_ to hate other guys so much that Congress would end up choosing the President each time through debate. What was _NOT_ intended was for political parties to creep up and unify the voices of people across state lines (ie: giving actual power to the Electoral College. Woops). The founders got a lot of things wrong about how people would act. But they got the part right about Congress. What we see today is exactly what the founders intended. (This doesn't mean that the founders are necessarily correct about this issue, but anyone who has studied the Federalist papers / other early writings knows this to be how Congress was designed). Yeah, people glorify the founders and all that. But they were just people, and they made mistakes. (Have you met anyone yet who believes that the founders were divinely inspired by God? Because I have. There's lots of opinions about how this country was founded) Regardless, its important to understand their intents and the design of this country as part of our debates. Congress, for better or for worse, is acting just as intended. The reason why Congress can't do anything right now is because we have deep disagreements across this country about what we should do. ------------ > everyone? Every House/Senator has over 50% of support within their district, by definition. Every. Period. If not, their opponent gets elected next time. There's some legitimate questions about redistricting and such (Gerrymandering wasn't foreseen by the founders). But Senators are immune to Gerrymandering by nature of how they work. But the reason why we have so many Senators for some areas is because of compromises before the Civil War about slave states vs non-slave states (whenever a "slave state" was founded, a non-slave state would split into two states to satisfy the status quo). There's all sorts of messes that we've inherited from short-sighted decisions 200 years ago (after the founders, but before the civil war). In any case: the specific complain that I asserted earlier: that we like "our guy" but dislike others, is exactly how the system was designed to work. Only when large groups of people agree on a matter should a new law be written. > source? It may also be useful to disambiguate anti-vaxers from anti-vax-mandate-ers. I think they have fundamentally different arguments. I dunno? My parents? My sister's father in law? My coworkers? The lady on the Airplane I talked to? Just talk to people. Its pretty common. Look for watchers of Fox News or One American News networks, and the like. Surely you have someone in your social circle? IVM is a miracle drug being used by people overseas that CDC isn't allowing. Don't-cha-know? Its the same line being used everywhere, because these people are watching / listening the same arguments from leaders they trust. I think the smarter leaders are trying to morph the discussion towards drugs that do work (ie: Monoclonal Antibodies), and I'm willing to have a debate on that issue. (Monoclonal antibodies do work, but cost $2000+ per dose. Compared to a $20 vaccine or a $1 mask, its a steep price to pay). IVM is so stupid I'm not going to debate it seriously.
- speedybird 5y ago
  > These people who don't trust masks trust ivermectin. Just... talk with them. I've talked with them. Some of them believe as you say. Others don't. I think you're doing a lot of pigeonholing; the reality outside defies the neat discrete classification favored in internet conversations.
- angelzen 5y ago
  Ivermectin is a perfect story for our divided times. Republicans believe Ivermectin is very effective by a 22R-6D margin and very + possibly effective by a 56R-19D margin. Conversely, Democrats believe Ivermectin is dangerous by a 64D-18R margin. May I kindly suggest we lay off partisan news? https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/09/02/most-republicans-who-have-heard-ivermectin https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
betterunix2 5y ago
No, the Gallup poll says 12% Americans say they trust Congress. People say they do not trust politicians, but the fact is that when politicians speak people listen. Politicians know this and that is why they always give soundbite-oriented remarks and lines of questioning in their various hearings and "debates."
- Clubber 5y ago
  >People say they do not trust politicians, but the fact is that when politicians speak people listen. Politicians know this and that is why they always give soundbite-oriented remarks and lines of questioning in their various hearings and "debates." If people are only listening to sound bites, they aren't really listening. I think most people are staring to realize that politicians are self serving. The reality distortion field is finally starting to wear off. When shit hits the fan, like COVID, people listen though, they listen very carefully. The current crop of politicians have forgotten how to be leaders though and go through their same ole sound-byte-and-finger-point-for-reelection trope they've grown accustomed to getting them reelected. I think it will cause a few waves in the next few elections, especially as COVID draws out over the next few years.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> You are assuming "they" trust the Republican leadership. this Gallup poll says only 12% of Americans trust congress. Congress ≠ the Republican leadership ≠ at least one member of the Republican leadership, or GOP members aligned therewith, enough to overcome dis- or non-trust of the rest. “Congress” as an institution usually polls really badly when compared to individual politicians in their own districts, because Congress consists of 535 members, 532 of which the person answering the poll had no say in electing and represent people with different interests living elsewhere, and (usually) approximately half of which represent the least preferred of the two major parties, who usually have the power to at least block legislation (thanks to either split between the partisan majority of the House and Senate or, failing that, the Senate filibuster.) Trust of either party leadership, and particularly voter’s own members of Congress, tends to be much higher than that of Congress as a whole.

dragontamer 5y ago

These people who don't trust masks trust ivermectin. Just... talk with them. Its obvious. There's one political party pushing ivermectin as a solution, and the other one doesn't. They want "their side" to be correct on this issue. They don't trust masks because masks were chosen by "the other side". They don't trust vaccines (despite being pushed by Operation Warp Speed by Mr. Trump) because someone else became president and started pushing vaccines. It was historically liberals who hated vaccines, not conservatives. Conservatives were the ones making lynch mobs to forcibly vaccinate people (still an ugly history there but... seriously. The entire political world has flipped upside down). -------- This isn't about the message. Its 100% about who trusts who, and who trusts what. This is a problem of ethos, not of facts or logos.

greenail 5y ago
My post had nothing to do with any party affiliation. I was simply pointing out the data regarding where trust in our institutions is. Please ratchet the "they"/"other" stuff back a bit. I don't think it is helping us trust each other.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  And my post is about the reality of our politics today. People distrust masks but trust ivermectin. Why? Because certain leaders in certain political thoughts are pushing anti-mask and pro-ivermectin messages. Its that simple. There's no need to mince words. People trust their leaders. If it helps, its the same reason why some liberals are all "Screw the rich", because they trust Bernie Sanders. No one likes __Congress__ as an institution, but everyone likes their particular Senator/House rep. If not, those people would be immediately voted out. Its all the _OTHER_ reps that people don't like in Congress. Just as the institution was designed. That's how its supposed to work: you don't like the reps who push for stuff in their state/interests (but not your state and/or interests)... but you like the guy who represents your state/interests. Perhaps I'm being too brutalistic or simple. But its really how I see things.
  - greenail 5y ago
    > People distrust masks but trust ivermectin. source? It may also be useful to disambiguate anti-vaxers from anti-vax-mandate-ers. I think they have fundamentally different arguments. >but everyone likes their particular Senator/House rep. everyone? > That's how its supposed to work: I doubt that the founders intended to build a system only 12% of people supported but maybe...
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      > I doubt that the founders intended to build a system only 12% of people supported but maybe... The founders absolutely intended for Congress to be the "we like our guy but dislike every other guy" situation. 100%. In fact, that's 100% evident in the design of the electoral college. We were _supposed_ to hate other guys so much that Congress would end up choosing the President each time through debate. What was _NOT_ intended was for political parties to creep up and unify the voices of people across state lines (ie: giving actual power to the Electoral College. Woops). The founders got a lot of things wrong about how people would act. But they got the part right about Congress. What we see today is exactly what the founders intended. (This doesn't mean that the founders are necessarily correct about this issue, but anyone who has studied the Federalist papers / other early writings knows this to be how Congress was designed). Yeah, people glorify the founders and all that. But they were just people, and they made mistakes. (Have you met anyone yet who believes that the founders were divinely inspired by God? Because I have. There's lots of opinions about how this country was founded) Regardless, its important to understand their intents and the design of this country as part of our debates. Congress, for better or for worse, is acting just as intended. The reason why Congress can't do anything right now is because we have deep disagreements across this country about what we should do. ------------ > everyone? Every House/Senator has over 50% of support within their district, by definition. Every. Period. If not, their opponent gets elected next time. There's some legitimate questions about redistricting and such (Gerrymandering wasn't foreseen by the founders). But Senators are immune to Gerrymandering by nature of how they work. But the reason why we have so many Senators for some areas is because of compromises before the Civil War about slave states vs non-slave states (whenever a "slave state" was founded, a non-slave state would split into two states to satisfy the status quo). There's all sorts of messes that we've inherited from short-sighted decisions 200 years ago (after the founders, but before the civil war). In any case: the specific complain that I asserted earlier: that we like "our guy" but dislike others, is exactly how the system was designed to work. Only when large groups of people agree on a matter should a new law be written. > source? It may also be useful to disambiguate anti-vaxers from anti-vax-mandate-ers. I think they have fundamentally different arguments. I dunno? My parents? My sister's father in law? My coworkers? The lady on the Airplane I talked to? Just talk to people. Its pretty common. Look for watchers of Fox News or One American News networks, and the like. Surely you have someone in your social circle? IVM is a miracle drug being used by people overseas that CDC isn't allowing. Don't-cha-know? Its the same line being used everywhere, because these people are watching / listening the same arguments from leaders they trust. I think the smarter leaders are trying to morph the discussion towards drugs that do work (ie: Monoclonal Antibodies), and I'm willing to have a debate on that issue. (Monoclonal antibodies do work, but cost $2000+ per dose. Compared to a $20 vaccine or a $1 mask, its a steep price to pay). IVM is so stupid I'm not going to debate it seriously.
speedybird 5y ago
> These people who don't trust masks trust ivermectin. Just... talk with them. I've talked with them. Some of them believe as you say. Others don't. I think you're doing a lot of pigeonholing; the reality outside defies the neat discrete classification favored in internet conversations.
angelzen 5y ago
Ivermectin is a perfect story for our divided times. Republicans believe Ivermectin is very effective by a 22R-6D margin and very + possibly effective by a 56R-19D margin. Conversely, Democrats believe Ivermectin is dangerous by a 64D-18R margin. May I kindly suggest we lay off partisan news? https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/09/02/most-republicans-who-have-heard-ivermectin https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...

betterunix2 5y ago

No, the Gallup poll says 12% Americans say they trust Congress. People say they do not trust politicians, but the fact is that when politicians speak people listen. Politicians know this and that is why they always give soundbite-oriented remarks and lines of questioning in their various hearings and "debates."

Clubber 5y ago
>People say they do not trust politicians, but the fact is that when politicians speak people listen. Politicians know this and that is why they always give soundbite-oriented remarks and lines of questioning in their various hearings and "debates." If people are only listening to sound bites, they aren't really listening. I think most people are staring to realize that politicians are self serving. The reality distortion field is finally starting to wear off. When shit hits the fan, like COVID, people listen though, they listen very carefully. The current crop of politicians have forgotten how to be leaders though and go through their same ole sound-byte-and-finger-point-for-reelection trope they've grown accustomed to getting them reelected. I think it will cause a few waves in the next few elections, especially as COVID draws out over the next few years.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> You are assuming "they" trust the Republican leadership. this Gallup poll says only 12% of Americans trust congress. Congress ≠ the Republican leadership ≠ at least one member of the Republican leadership, or GOP members aligned therewith, enough to overcome dis- or non-trust of the rest. “Congress” as an institution usually polls really badly when compared to individual politicians in their own districts, because Congress consists of 535 members, 532 of which the person answering the poll had no say in electing and represent people with different interests living elsewhere, and (usually) approximately half of which represent the least preferred of the two major parties, who usually have the power to at least block legislation (thanks to either split between the partisan majority of the House and Senate or, failing that, the Senate filibuster.) Trust of either party leadership, and particularly voter’s own members of Congress, tends to be much higher than that of Congress as a whole.