Category: reddit

This is part of an ongoing series highlighting some of the best political commentary from Reddit. Content skews to the left, because — as they say — facts are inherently liberal. All credit for this content goes to the original author. For more great content like this, check out the Reddit category or tag.

Why are conservatives scared of everything?

/u/Undeadfungas

Assuming this wasn’t a rhetorical question: Their brains are wired differently from liberals.

No seriously.

Recent studies have shown that self-identified conservatives tend, on average, to have larger amygdalae than self-identified liberals so.

The amygdala is an old brain structure, it’s been there since the beginning, and is primarily responsible for addressing feelings of fear, threat, and anxiety. When you’re in the middle of a hunt and the bushes next to you rustle, glare, and growl, it’s the amygdala that the rest of the brain looks to for advice: “Do I fight, fly, or freeze?”

From an evolutionary standpoint, the amygdala is a literal (not figurative) life saver. This could be described, partially, as the “shoot first, ask questions later” part of the human brain, and when one considers what early man had to deal with, shooting first was often the best plan available. “Is that other tribe of proto-humans friendly, or are they coming to kill me, steal my food, and rape my women? Better kill them first, just to be safe.” When one member of the, er, clan(?) wanted to travel east and look for better hunting, it was the other member, with the larger amygdala, who said “Hold on buddy, we’ve got plenty of food right here. Yeah, there might be mastodons over that hill, but there could also be angry mastodons over that hill. Is it really worth the risk?”

Now with that in mind, consider what Fox News and the right-wing media is feeding to their audience all day, every day: Fear. Pure, uncut, unadulterated fear.

Off the top of my head, we’ve got: Creeping sharia, the President is a muslim, terrorists are coming to Kansas, there’s a war on Christmas, liberals are coming to steal your guns, socialists are coming to steal your paycheck, secularists are coming to steal your bible, ebola, the knockout game, vicious mexicans spreading taco trucks, SJWs want to overturn the first amendment, your local mosque is a sleeper cell, globalists, Hillary Clinton literally murders people, feminism, the gay agenda, jazz, pedophiles in your daughter’s bathroom….. and it goes on.

Fox News markets fear and anxiety to people who are already predisposed to fear and anxiety! Then they end the segment with “Oh, and by the way, all those things you’re scared of are because of Democrats and Unions, the only thing that can protect you are Republicans and free market economics.”

I’ve said this before, but the right-wing media emotionally abuses their audience. They scare the shit out of their viewers and listeners with the intent of selling them products and politics. Who in the actual fuck needs a dozen modern firearms? (I’m not talking about the collector who has his great grandfather’s double barreled shotgun, I’m talking about the doomsday survivalist with 3 semi-automatic rifles for every member of the household, even little Timmy.) Scared people do. The NRA markets fear, Fox markets fear, Donald Trump’s “rapists, murderers, and drug dealers” Presidential campaign was exclusively built on and around fear. The entire Republican brand, simplistically explained as “Change is bad, better to stick to what we know,” is predicated on the fear (often times sincere) that trying something new could backfire.

Now here’s something to remember, a caveat of sorts: Just because the things Republicans are scared of (or are told to be scared of) are imaginary, doesn’t mean that the fear itself isn’t real. The emotional reaction many people feel at the prospect of “death panels” is a real emotion. That brings us to the biggest part of the problem, and why it’s so difficult to change people’s minds: Fear literally shuts down the reasoning center of the brain.

Ever watch a horror movie and wonder “Dude, why are you guys splitting up, why not just hide in the basement, why are you letting the black guy go into the house alone!?” In the case of movies stupid decisions like that are the result of lousy writing, in the case of the real world stupid decisions like that are the result of the amygdala telling the rest of the brain that you either need to run face first at the axe murderer, run away from the axe murderer, or stand in the middle of the room staring at the axe murderer because maybe he can only see you if you move, it’s only after the axe murderer doesn’t actually axe murder anyone that you might realize he’s wearing catsup on his face and his axe is made of foam rubber.

But remember what I was talking about before: “Maybe that tribe is friendly, or maybe they’re here to kill me”?

In the case of the conservative movement, in the case of the axe murderer, they’ve got a voice constantly whispering in their ear “No, the axe is real, there’s a real axe underneath the foam rubber, the catsup is camouflage, the people insisting that you’re looking at a guy in a halloween costume want you to die, and you can’t trust them, they hate you, they hate everything about you, nothing would make them happier than to see you killed by an axe murderer.” Listening to the right-wing media is like sticking an electrode right into the fear center of the brain, and poking it for eight hours a day, seven days a week, all year long.

So of course people are going to make irrational decisions: They’re being fed emotionally abusive lies (and I’m not being hyperbolic about that, either.) This is why I don’t feel quite the animosity toward Republican voters that many people do in the wake of President Trump’s election; if I consumed the right-wing media nonsense, I might vote for Donald Trump too. Or, to quote President Obama, “If I watched Fox news, I wouldn’t vote for me either.”

• Washington Post: Why fear is more prevalent, and more powerful, in conservatives.
• Psychology Today: Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds
• AlterNet: New Studies Show Liberals and Conservatives Have Different Brain Structures
• Axios: Liberal and conservative brains handle emotions differently
• Current Biology: Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults
• University of Southern California: Which brain networks respond when someone sticks to a belief?
• Scientific American: Unconscious Reactions Separate Liberals and Conservatives
• Doctor Gail Saltz: Liberal vs. Conservative: A Neuroscientific Analysis with Gail Saltz (YouTube)

Now for some important disclaimers.

First of all an important reminder from neuroscience: “Neurons that fire together, wire together.” The human brain shapes itself, if I spend all day thinking about doughnuts, the part of my brain responsible for thinking about doughnuts will get stronger and more responsive; inversely people who have a stronger and more responsive part of the brain responsible for thinking about doughnuts are much more likely to spend all day thinking about doughnuts. It’s called neuroplasticity, and I just did a horrible job explaining it. Suffice it to say that we don’t know whether people with larger amygdala are more likely to express conservative opinions, or if people who express conservative opinions are more likely to develop larger amygdala. When it comes to the brain, we still don’t know whether the chicken or the egg came first.

Secondly, while I am not an -ologist of any sort, I am strongly of the opinion that in the absence of the right-wing media or extremist religions telling people what to be scared of and who to blame for their fears, the difference between liberal and conservative brains would not result in such different behavior and values… but that’s like doing a physics equation in a frictionless vacuum. I firmly believe that the aforementioned institutions are emotionally abusing their audiences for personal and institutional gain, pushing them to think and behave in ways they wouldn’t have arrived at on their own. (But then again, I’m an optimist.)

Finally, biological differences are not, in and of themselves, good or bad things, it’s only in context that something becomes good or bad. Nothing that I’ve written is intended to judge or belittle conservatives, none of it makes them better or worse than liberals, just different. Remember that you, and I, and everyone else on planet earth, are looking through social and cultural lenses, applying our own subjective values to objective reality. I don’t want anyone to see this as a condemnation of conservatism or conservatives, but I would be fine with everyone being pissed right the fuck off that the right-wing media is emotionally abusing our fellow citizens. There’s a reason I use the term “emotional abuse,” and I’ll stand by it till the end, they’re gaslighting our country, our friends, our families, for their own ends. Their behavior is unethical, it’s immoral, it’s abusive, and it needs to stop, period.

Edit: A bit more.

This is part of an ongoing series highlighting some of the best political commentary from Reddit. Content skews to the left, because — as they say — facts are inherently liberal. All credit for this content goes to the original author. For more great content like this, check out the Reddit category or tag.

This is part of an ongoing series highlighting some of the best political commentary from Reddit. Content skews to the left, because — as they say — facts are inherently liberal. All credit for this content goes to the original author. For more great content like this, check out the Reddit category or tag.

This is part of an ongoing series highlighting some of the best political commentary from Reddit. Content skews to the left, because — as they say — facts are inherently liberal. All credit for this content goes to the original author. For more great content like this, check out the Reddit category or tag.

Everyone should read Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism essay (PDF but there are tons of other versions online). It is less than ten pages long and outlines in 14 points the features of a fascist society. Trump and his hardline followers tick off every checkbox on the list.

He also explains why fascist ideology is so incomprehensible:

Fascism was a fuzzy totalitarianism, a collage of different philosophical and political ideas, a beehive of contradictions. … The Fascist Party [here he means the Italians who defined fascism] was born boasting that it brought a revolutionary new order; but it was financed by the most conservative among the landowners who expected from it a counter-revolution. At its beginning fascism was republican. Yet it survived for twenty years proclaiming its loyalty to the royal family, while the Duce (the unchallenged Maximal Leader) was armin-arm with the King, to whom he also offered the title of Emperor. But when the King fired Mussolini in 1943, the party reappeared two months later, with German support, under the standard of a “social” republic, recycling its old revolutionary script, now enriched with almost Jacobin overtones.

The 14 points:

1. Cult of tradition — anti-intellectual reversion to “revealed truth” — no learning allowed.
2. Rejection of modernism and irrational appeal to the “old”
3. Cult of action for action’s sake — thinking = emasculation — act now think later
4. Disagreement is treason — criticism is a betrayal of traditional thought
5. Fear of the other — exploits differences — inherently racist
6. Angry middle class — economic crisis or fear of lower social groups — fascism historically appeals to this group — in US white majority is rapidly declining and growing angry…
7. Obsession with identity and plot — we derive our identity only by finding enemies within & without who constantly plot against us
8. Enemies are stronger & weaker, smarter & dumber — Jews run the world but are inferior, etc — “We are humiliated by their wealth & power, but they are weak and stupid so we shall take it from them”
9. War is Life — until we defeat all our enemies in the final battle at the End of Days and attain our Utopia — see the Thousand Year Reich concept
10. Contempt for the weak — there is a strict pecking order and everyone beneath me is worthless and deserves my contempt
11. Cult of heroism — a heroic death is the reward for a heroic life in service to the State
12. Machismo — real war is dangerous but I can avoid that and still be a hero by being a real man to the ladies…. Trump, “cuck!” etc
13. Selective populism — The People are a prop only used for show, a monolithic entity expressing a common will interpreted by their leader while they cheer — “The People have no power so I will act for you” — Trump said “I alone can fix it”
14. Newspeak — alternative facts….

Another interesting essay is Orwell’s Notes on Nationalism. It’s a bit more abstract but the basic ideas are still there.

• Nationalism is obsessed with superiority and focused on competitive prestige, is defined by instability and loyalty transfer (see alt-right folks who switch allegiances at the drop of a hat), and is characterized by power hunger and self-deception. It is militant loyalty ao any cause with the goal of universal expansion by force.
• “What remains constant in the nationalist is his state of mind: the object of his feelings is changeable and may be imaginary.”
• Uncertainty about objective truth makes it easier to cling to lunatic believes — some border on schizophrenia (cf Eco’s beehive of contradictions)
• Important: displays, names, appearances
• Not important: reason, facts, reality
• Motto: “My side is the best side no matter what”
• “I can’t lie because I’m always right” (see: Trump) — drives dopamine-fueled tribal blindness in followers
• Authoritarian minds seek identity through group membership — it’s not about the tribe its about the mindset — tribal loyalties can shift and the new loyalty can come with hatred of the previous group.
• History is a team sport. “We didn’t murder those people, we liberated the oppressed.”
• Most intellectual “revolutionaries” care more for perceived prestige than actual meaningful change.
• Competitive prestige leads to confirmation bias leads to unrealistic predictions (who should win)

Especially important in Orwell’s short essay is the concept of pseudo-intellectuals seeking salvation by switching loyalties suddenly and violently to preserve their public image and ego.

There is also a free book online by the foremost psychological researcher into the authoritarian mindset detailing numerous studies showing how the authoritarian mind actually works. He also blogs occasionally about the growing dark authoritarianism in the US. https://theauthoritarians.org/

This is part of an ongoing series highlighting some of the best political commentary from Reddit. Content skews to the left, because — as they say — facts are inherently liberal. All credit for this content goes to the original author. For more great content like this, check out the Reddit category or tag.

2nd amendment absolutists tend to see the words gun control and quickly trot out the tired phrase “Well I’d support new policies, if anyone was proposing something that would actually work!” It’s the NRA infantry equivalent of thoughts and prayers, a way of pretending to support something, of pretending to do good, it’s rearranging the peas and mashed potatoes so it looks like you ate your vegetables.

Usually this is followed up by some variation of “The Democrat party only cares about feels, not reals!” and similar bullshit. So, for your consideration, here’s a list of “real things that would actually work,” may they serve you well in your arguments:

Firearm Laws and Firearm Homicides A Systematic Review

Findings We found evidence that stronger firearm laws are associated with reductions in firearm homicide rates. The strongest evidence is for laws that strengthen background checks and that require a permit to purchase a firearm. The effect of many of the other specific types of laws is uncertain, specifically laws to curb gun trafficking, improve child safety, ban military-style assault weapons, and restrict firearms in public places.

Evaluating the Impact of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Self-defense Law on Homicide and Suicide by Firearm

Findings: This study used an interrupted time series design to analyze changes in rates of homicide and firearm-related homicide. We found that the implementation of Florida’s stand your ground law was associated with a 24.4% increase in homicide and a 31.6% increase in firearm-related homicide.

The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010

Results: Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

Mental illness and reduction of gun violence and suicide: bringing epidemiologic research to policy.

RESULTS: Media accounts of mass shootings by disturbed individuals galvanize public attention and reinforce popular belief that mental illness often results in violence. Epidemiologic studies show that the large majority of people with serious mental illnesses are never violent. However, mental illness is strongly associated with increased risk of suicide, which accounts for over half of US firearms-related fatalities.

Firearm legislation and firearm mortality in the USA: a cross-sectional, state-level study

31,672 firearm-related deaths occurred in 2010 in the USA (10.1 per 100,000 people; mean state-specific count 631.5 [SD 629.1]). Of 25 firearm laws, nine were associated with reduced firearm mortality, nine were associated with increased firearm mortality, and seven had an inconclusive association. After adjustment for relevant covariates, the three state laws most strongly associated with reduced overall firearm mortality were universal background checks for firearm purchase (multivariable IRR 0.39 [95% CI 0.23–0.67]; p=0.001), ammunition background checks (0.18 [0.09–0.36]; p<0.0001), and identification requirement for firearms (0.16 [0.09–0.29]; p<0.0001). Projected federal-level implementation of universal background checks for firearm purchase could reduce national firearm mortality from 10.35 to 4.46 deaths per 100,000 people, background checks for ammunition purchase could reduce it to 1.99 per 100,000, and firearm identification to 1.81 per 100,000.

State Intimate Partner Violence–Related Firearm Laws and Intimate Partner Homicide Rates in the United States, 1991 to 2015

Results: State laws that prohibit persons subject to IPV-related restraining orders from possessing firearms and also require them to relinquish firearms in their possession were associated with 9.7% lower total IPH rates (95% CI, 3.4% to 15.5% reduction) and 14.0% lower firearm-related IPH rates (CI, 5.1% to 22.0% reduction) than in states without these laws. Laws that did not explicitly require relinquishment of firearms were associated with a non–statistically significant 6.6% reduction in IPH rates.

TL;DR:

1. Universal background checks for firearm purchases
2. Universal background checks for ammunition purchases
3. Requiring a permit to purchase a firearm
4. Overturning ‘stand your ground’ laws (read the study before you get your panties in a bunch)
5. Prohibiting individuals with a history of domestic violence from purchasing a firearm (and ammunition, presumably)
   

There ya’ go, five real, empirically proven ways to reduce firearm related deaths. For my own peace of mind, I’d throw comprehensive mental health care funding on the pile too, since suicides account for a large percentage of deaths (and yes, suicides do count! You’d be surprised how many people think they shouldn’t.) Of course on that same point, comprehensive mental health care funding really doesn’t need to be tied to firearms since it’s the right thing to do anyway, so maybe I’m just being redundant.

One of the biggest problems we face when it comes to gun control is that we’ve got patchwork laws across the nation. Many people like to point to Chicago and proclaim “Look, they have some of the toughest gun laws in the country, they also have some of the highest homicide rates in the country, checkmate!” …but less than half of the firearms used in Chicago were originally purchased in Illinois, the rest came from other states where gun laws are more relaxed and firearms are easier to acquire. Here in Maryland it’s pretty common for people to get their cigarettes in Virginia, because Maryland puts a hell of tax on them and Virginia doesn’t. Until firearm regulations are universal and cross state lines, until a straw buyer has to meet the same standards in every state in the union, and street criminals have to pass a background check to buy a box of ammunition, firearms will just flow following the path of least resistance.

A last thought before I go, another rhetorical trick of the NRA is to fall back on “Yes, but [that policy] wouldn’t have prevented [this shooting], so it’s a bad idea!” Don’t fall into that trap. We don’t need reactive gun policy in this country, we need proactive gun policy, how we could have prevented the last shooting is less important than how we can prevent the next one. Most shootings aren’t mass shootings, they’re suicides, they’re family killing family, they’re friends killing friends, that’s what the policies above are meant to help. I don’t know how to prevent mass shootings, but in this debate we cannot afford to narrow our view so tightly. Don’t let yourself be dragged into a rhetorical debate with shifting goal posts and a stable of wellbuts, the above is what we know works, that’s the whole scope of my post here “These are the policies that we know will reduce the rate of firearm homicides.” That’s all I can offer you today, unfortunately, those five reals.

Edit: A response to a some recurring rhetorical reasoning in the comments below, namely “Yes, but I have a right to keep and bear arms!” (I’m putting this in an edit since it doesn’t really fit into the “policies to reduce firearm related deaths” category, but does fit into the “reals” category.)

The individual right to keep and bear arms wasn’t established until the District of Columbia vs. Heller decision in 2008 in which the Supreme Court decided to essentially throw out the language that “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” and the existing legal precedent that had come before it.

Prior to the Heller decision, 2nd amendment rights were weighed in the context of their usefulness in a militia, as specifically outlined in the 1939 US vs. Miller decision, quoted below:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

(Emphasis mine, though I’d encourage you to read it in its entirety.)

If you want to learn more you can read Justice Steven’s and Justice Breyer’s respective legal dissents on the Heller decision, both of whom go into much more detail than I can here. Essentially, however, they make the same point that I am making: The individual right to keep and bear arms is a deviation from historical precedent and existing legal opinions.

Stated simply: The Heller decision was judicial activism, not constitutional interpretation.

This is part of an ongoing series highlighting some of the best political commentary from Reddit. Content skews to the left, because — as they say — facts are inherently liberal. All credit for this content goes to the original author. For more great content like this, check out the Reddit category or tag.

Big corporations, which often lobby politically to receive favors tend to have more power than the law.

Evelyn_Abigail

Look no further than Shell Oil in Nigeria:

Shell Oil acting as a multinational global conglomerate and one of the largest companies on earth were paying bribes to government officials in Nigeria. They were paying the military to conduct raids on innocent protesters homes and ended up hanging innocent protest leaders in order to suppress the protesting against Shell.

My username is my attempt at education via a spoof on the Human Rights Abuses by Shell Oil in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria.

For more information about Shell in Nigeria, please look at the sources below.

The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians’ every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.

His death provoked international outrage and the immediate suspension of Nigeria from the Commonwealth of Nations, as well as the calling back of many foreign diplomats for consultation. The United States and other countries considered imposing economic sanctions.

Beginning in 1996, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), EarthRights International (ERI), Paul Hoffman of Schonbrun, DeSimone, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman and other human rights attorneys have brought a series of cases to hold Shell accountable for alleged human rights violations in Nigeria, including summary execution, crimes against humanity, torture, inhumane treatment and arbitrary arrest and detention. The lawsuits are brought against Royal Dutch Shell and Brian Anderson, the head of its Nigerian operation.[15]

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York set a trial date of June 2009. On 9 June 2009 Shell agreed to an out-of-court settlement of $15.5 million USD to victims’ families. However, the company denied any liability for the deaths, stating that the payment was part of a reconciliation process.[16] In a statement given after the settlement, Shell suggested that the money was being provided to the relatives of Saro-Wiwa and the eight other victims, in order to cover the legal costs of the case and also in recognition of the events that took place in the region.[17] Some of the funding is also expected to be used to set up a development trust for the Ogoni people, who inhabit the Niger Delta region of Nigeria.[18] The settlement was made just days before the trial, which had been brought by Ken Saro-Wiwa’s son, was due to begin in New York.[17]

On June 8, 2009, Shell settled out-of-court with the Saro-Wiwa family for $15.5 million.[3][4] Ben Amunwa, director of the Remember Saro-Wiwa organization, said that “No company, that is innocent of any involvement with the Nigeria military and human rights abuses, would settle out of court for 15.5 million dollars. It clearly shows that they have something to hide”.[5]

Shell oil paid Nigerian military to put down protests, court documents show

Another article – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/niger/5413171/Shell-execs-accused-of-collaboration-over-hanging-of-Nigerian-activist-Ken-Saro-Wiwa.html

Short 10 min documentary about it – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htF5XElMyGI – The Case Against Shell: ‘The Hanging of Ken Saro-Wiwa Showed the True Cost of Oil’

Other links –

Deposition of Eebu Jackson Nwiyon, a Mobile Police Force (MOPOL) soldier and Shell SPY (Shell supernumerary police) officer who served in Ogoni describes being told how his fellow soldiers were being paid by Shell, recounts boarding a Shell helicopter at a Shell installation with other heavily-armed soldiers. He recounts his superior being given a bulky envelope by Shell staff, which he assumes contained the cash allowances distributed to the soldiers shortly after. He is told by an officer that the Ogoni are being “taught a lesson” for resisting Shell. He recounts Major Okuntimo telling him that if they encounter any resistance to not “leave any of the persons alive.” https://web.archive.org/web/20111128235912/http://www.shellguilty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/depo4.pdf

In this fax from Anderson to colleagues in London & the Hague, Anderson is aware that Shell’s most vocal critic, Saro-Wiwa, was likely to be found guilty by a military tribunal, 7 months before the sentencing. In Anderson’s words, the BHC believes that “although the charges [against Saro-Wiwa] should not stick, the government will make sure he is found guilty and then sentenced to death, and reprieved but incarcerated for a very long time”. (page 2) https://web.archive.org/web/20111129010207/http://www.shellguilty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/exhibit55.pdf

New case of bribery 2017 – http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/11/emails-show-shells-complicity-in-biggest-oil-corruption-scandal-in-history-nigeria-resource-curse-etete-eni/

October 2017 – https://www.globalwitness.org/en/press-releases/shell-executives-charged-lead-landmark-trial-over-billion-dollar-nigerian-bribery-scheme/

30 min documentary about Shell’s Gas Flaring – Poison Fire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq2TBOHWFRc

28 NOVEMBER 2017

Amnesty International has obtained internal documents pointing to complicity by Royal Dutch Shell in crimes committed by the Nigerian military during the 1990s.

The allegations have been known for some time, but thus far had not been substantiated with internal documents.

Shell called for military support from senior officials, even after the military forces had killed, tortured or raped many demonstrators.

Amnesty International report – https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/AFR44/7393/2017/en/

Inside the secret world of the corporate spies who infiltrate protests

Major firms hiring people from corporate security firms to monitor and infiltrate political groups that object to their commercial activities

This is part of an ongoing series highlighting some of the best political commentary from Reddit. Content skews to the left, because — as they say — facts are inherently liberal. All credit for this content goes to the original author. For more great content like this, check out the Reddit category or tag.

“I’m much more humble than you would understand.”

“I have the best temperament or certainly one of the best temperaments of anybody that’s ever run for the office of president. Ever.”

“I’m the most successful person ever to run for the presidency, by far. Nobody’s ever been more successful than me.”

“I’m the least racist person you will ever interview.”

“Number one, I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life. Number two, racism. The least racist person”

“I’m the best thing that’s ever happened to the Secret Service.”

“No one has done more for people with disabilities than me.”

“Nobody in the history of this country has ever known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump.”

“There’s nobody who understands the horror of nuclear more than me.”

“There’s nobody bigger or better at the military than I am.”

“There’s nobody that’s done so much for equality as I have”

“There’s nobody that has more respect for women than I do,”

“Nobody respects women more than I do”

“And I was so furious at that story, because there’s nobody that respects women more than I do,”

“Nobody respects women more than Donald Trump”

“She can’t talk about me because nobody respects women more than Donald Trump,”

“Nobody has more respect for women than Donald Trump!”

“Nobody has more respect for women than I do.”

“Nobody has more respect for women than I do. Nobody.”

“Nobody reads the Bible more than me.”

“Nobody loves the Bible more than I do”

“Nobody does self-deprecating humor better than I do. It’s not even close”

“Nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe in the history of the world.”

“Nobody knows more about trade than me”

“Nobody knows the (visa) system better than me. I know the H1B. I know the H2B. Nobody knows it better than me.”

“Nobody knows debt better than me.”

“I think nobody knows the system better than I do”

“I know more about renewables than any human being on earth.”

“I know more about ISIS than the generals do.”

“I know more about contributions than anybody”

“I know more about offense and defense than they will ever understand, believe me. Believe me. Than they will ever understand. Than they will ever understand.”

“I know more about wedges than any human being that’s ever lived”

“I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has ever run for president”

“I’m very highly educated. I know words; I have the best words.”

“I know some of you may think l’m tough and harsh but actually I’m a very compassionate person (with a very high IQ) with strong common sense”

“I watch these pundits on television and, you know, they call them intellectuals. They’re not intellectuals,” Trump told thousands of supporters in the swing state. “I’m much smarter than them. I think I have a much higher IQ. I think I went to a better college — better everything,”

“@ajodom60: @FoxNews and as far as that low-info voter base goes, I have an IQ of 132. So much for that theory. #MakeAmericaGreatAgain”

Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest-and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure,it’s not your fault

“He’s been quite critical of you as you know. He’s attacked you for being ignorant,” Piers Morgan said to Trump. “Let’s do an IQ test,” Trump interrupted

“We can’t let these people, these so called egg-heads–and by the way, I guarantee you my IQ is much higher than theirs, alright. Somebody said the other day, ‘Yes, well the intellectuals–‘ I said, ‘What intellectuals? I’m smarter than they are, many of people in this audience are smarter than they are.”

“You know, I’m, like, a smart person. I don’t have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years,” Trump told Fox News last December.

….Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. Crooked Hillary Clinton also played these cards very hard and, as everyone knows, went down in flames. I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star…..

Trump says he has “one of the great memories of all time“

Asked on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” who he talks with consistently about foreign policy, Trump responded, “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.”

” … I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius….and a very stable genius at that!”

Remember: con men tell you who they are, genuine men show you.

This is part of an ongoing series highlighting some of the best political commentary from Reddit. Content skews to the left, because — as they say — facts are inherently liberal. All credit for this content goes to the original author. For more great content like this, check out the Reddit category or tag.

Where are the Republicans that have been saying how they support our troops?
Which side are they on?

u/Dionysus_the_Greek

The only side they’re on is the “Republican” side. If you look behind that, there’s nothing.

Republicans don’t care in the slightest about actual policies, or their supposed “principles”. They just care what the Party (and particularly Donald Trump) is in favor of at any given moment. Meanwhile, it’s worth noting that Democrats maintain fairly consistent opinions about policy, regardless of which party favors it, or who is in power.

The Party of Principles:

• Exhibit 1: Opinion of Syrian airstrikes under Obama vs. Trump. Source Data 1, Source Data 2 and Article for Context
• Exhibit 2: Opinion of the NFL after large amounts of players began kneeling during the anthem to protest racism. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing Morning Consult package)
• Exhibit 3: Opinion of ESPN after they fired a conservative broadcast analyst. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing YouGov’s “BrandIndex” package)
• Exhibit 4: Opinion of Vladimir Putin after Trump began praising Russia during the election. Source Data and Article for Context
• Exhibit 5: Opinion of “Obamacare” vs. “Kynect” (Kentucky’s implementation of Obamacare). Kentuckians feel differently about the policy depending on the name. Source Data and Article for Context
• Exhibit 6: Christians (particularly evangelicals) became monumentally more tolerant of private immoral conduct among politicians once Trump became the GOP nominee. Source Data and Article for Context
• Exhibit 7: White Evangelicals cared less about how religious a candidate was once Trump became the GOP nominee. (Same source and article as previous exhibit.)
• Exhibit 8: Republicans were far more likely to embrace a certain policy if they knew Trump was for it—whether the policy was liberal or conservative. Source Data and Article for Context
• Exhibit 9: Republicans became far more opposed to gun control when Obama took office. Democrats have remained consistent. Source Data and Article for Context
• Exhibit 10: Republicans started to think college education is a bad thing once Trump entered the primary. Democrats remain consistent. Source Data and Article for Context
• Exhibit 11: Wisconsin Republicans felt the economy improve by 85 approval points the day Trump was sworn in. Graph also shows some Democratic bias, but not nearly as bad. Source Data and Article for Context
• Exhibit 12: Republicans became deeply negative about trade agreements when Trump became the GOP frontrunner. Democrats remain consistent. Source Data and Article for Context
• Exhibit 13: 10% fewer Republicans believed the wealthy weren’t paying enough in taxes once a billionaire became their president. Democrats remain fairly consistent. Source Data and Article for Context
• Exhibit 14: Republicans suddenly feel very comfortable making major purchases now that Trump is president. Democrats don’t feel more or less comfortable than before. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing Gallup’s Advanced Analytics package)
• Exhibit 15: Democrats have had a consistently improving outlook on the economy, including after Trump’s victory. Republicans? A 30-point spike once Trump won. Source Data and Article for Context

Donald Trump could go on a stage and start shouting about raising the minimum wage, increasing taxes on the wealthy, allowing more immigrants into the country, and combating climate change. His supporters would cheer and shout, and would all suddenly support liberal policies. It’s not a party of principles–it’s a party of sheep. And the data suggest that “both sides” aren’t the same in this regard. It’s just Republicans.