Random Politics & Religion #05

Seriously, that's been going on for years.

Where have you been?

You can't even see any planes on that aircraft carrier...

Watching.. Thought it was a funny headline.

Your're still mad I compared you to Pleebo, get over it Bro..

There's a local mom that knows one weird trick for getting rid of video ads. Advertising execs hate her!

Abstract

The present research investigates the associations between holding favorable views of potential Democratic or Republican candidates for the US presidency 2016 and seeing profoundness in *** statements. In this contribution, *** is used as a technical term which is defined as communicative expression that lacks content, logic, or truth from the perspective of natural science. We used the *** Receptivity scale (BSR) to measure seeing profoundness in *** statements. The BSR scale contains statements that have a correct syntactic structure and seem to be sound and meaningful on first reading but are actually vacuous. Participants (N = 196; obtained via Amazon Mechanical Turk) rated the profoundness of *** statements (using the BSR) and provided favorability ratings of three Democratic (Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, and Bernie Sanders) and three Republican candidates for US president (Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump). Participants also completed a measure of political liberalism/conservatism. Results revealed that favorable views of all three Republican candidates were positively related to judging *** statements as profound. The smallest correlation was found for Donald Trump. Although we observe a positive association between *** and support for the three Democrat candidates, this relationship is both substantively small and statistically insignificant. The general measure of political liberalism/conservatism was also related to judging *** statements as profound in that individuals who were more politically conservative had a higher tendency to see profoundness in *** statements. Of note, these results were not due to a general tendency among conservatives to see profoundness in everything: Favorable views of Republican candidates and conservatism were not significantly related to profoundness ratings of mundane statements. In contrast, this was the case for Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley. Overall, small-to-medium sized correlations were found, indicating that far from all conservatives see profoundness in *** statements.

Misperceiving *** as Profound Is Associated with Favorable Views of Cruz, Rubio, Trump and Conservatism

I love how certain members of the GOP try to dismiss PEER EDITED DOUBLE BLIND STUDIES because bias.

You don't even know the professor's political affiliation, you just assume because education = liberal and liberal = bad.

You can disagree with the publication all you want, but studies conducted in this matter are bias free.

It's about as close to factual data as you can get. The very manner in which it was conducted objectively ensures this.

bias

Wait, is this just like how certain liberals dismiss PEER EDITED DOUBLE BLIND STUDIES because bias also?

Actually, it was the abstract and introduction that tipped us off on the political affiliation. Those two sections constantly attacked conservatism and Republicans, while mentioning Clinton as a footnote (but also not attacking, and in a couple of cases, semi-praising her).

Even a HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE monkey could tell that professor's political affiliation and/or backers of this "paper." Don't forget, this paper is paid for by the DNC...



Unless these papers are written by robots, everything created by humans has a little bias in it. But in this case, it's so blatant that, to say otherwise, not only are you being dishonest with yourself, but dishonest to society as a whole.

AT the very least, this is an opinionated research paper. This paper selectively uses data in a way to make Republicans/conservationism look bad. If you want to be honest with yourself, you would use all data associated with this political cycle, which you honestly cannot until this election cycle is completed.

Hell, this paper was written in January 2016. Newsflash: We haven't had the election yet. How can you consider how *** favors a specific ideology if the *** hasn't stopped in this testing period yet....

The jaw-dropping impact that Bernie Sanders’ fiscal proposals would have the national debt seems to be growing by the month.

On Thursday, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said the Vermont lawmaker’s agenda, including his single-payer health care plan, could add as much as $19 trillion to the debt over the next ten years.

That’s up significantly from an estimate the committee released just last month that put the sticker price somewhere between $2 trillion and $15 trillion.

What changed in just a month?

Well, two new estimates – one from the Center for Health & Economy and the other from the Urban Institute – found that the health care plan "would cost dramatically more than the campaign-provided estimates suggest," according to the committee’s updated analysis.

"As a result, we no longer provide a 'low health cost' estimate based on the numbers cited by the Sanders campaign," it adds.

In fact, Sanders’ proposals “would raise both spending and revenue to far beyond any previous levels in the United States over the last half century.”



Under current law, the debt is set to rise from 86 percent of gross domestic product by 2026. But if Sanders’ proposals were enacted it would almost double, reaching 154 percent of GDP by 2026.

The updated analysis is the latest in a string of third-party estimates stretching back to last September that conclude that a Sanders administration would explode federal spending with his policies, such as free public college tuition and universal child care.

Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has routinely lambasted Sanders for offering policies that sound good on the stump without providing details on how to actually pay for them.

The Sanders campaign contends that his proposals are indeed fully paid for and would actually lower deficits by $2.8 trillion over a decade.

However, CRFB says that after looking at all the independent estimates out there, Sanders’ tax proposals don’t raise enough revenue to pay all the bills for his agenda.

Meanwhile, the committee estimated that Clinton’s proposals would add about $2 trillion to the existing debt, while presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s policies would boost the debt by about $12 trillion over 10 years.

That's a lot of words to say I didn't read the article only what was quoted in the post.

Misperceiving *** as Profound Is Associated with Favorable Views of Cruz, Rubio, Trump and Conservatism

Bias this doesn't talk crap about Republicans!!!

Am I doing it right?

Given these effect sizes, it must be noted that far from all conservatives see profoundness in pseudo-profound *** statements. Certainly, some liberals also see profoundness in *** statements, while some conservatives may clearly reject profoundness in *** statements

In this context, we also want to note that some participants might be non-naïve or trustworthy, as some participants regularly and systematically participate in online studies via the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform

One cannot conclude that conservatism leads to *** receptivity. What can be concluded is that conservatism is positively associated with seeing profoundness in *** statements and that those who have favorable views of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio are more likely to judge *** statements as profound compared with individuals who have less favorable views of these candidates