Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Left Knows ‘Exactly’ What Trump Said
We are experiencing the worst case of confirmation bias in this presidency that we’ve ever seen. Due to the extreme nature of its appearance and the rage with which it’s expressed, we should be very concerned. Let me explain what confirmation bias is:
Confirmation bias occurs from the direct influence of desire on beliefs. When people would like a certain idea or concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered so far confirms the views or prejudices one would like to be true.
Once we have formed a view, we embrace information that confirms that view while ignoring, or rejecting, information that casts doubt on it. Confirmation bias suggests that we don’t perceive circumstances objectively. We pick out those bits of data that make us feel good because they confirm our prejudices. Thus, we may become prisoners of our assumptions.
You might suggest that confirmation bias is baked into the cake of politics. I wouldn’t disagree. But it has become so extreme that I wonder if there is any room for actually identifying the truth or relatively objective information.
The best examples I can offer for this latest display of confirmation bias is the remark that I heard on a few television stations Wednesday. In interviews, the commentators on the Left would interpret what was written in the transcript (which became in their definition, notes) of the telephone call between Trump and Zelenskyy. Commentators believed that Trump was threatening to withhold funds from Ukraine if Zelenskyy didn’t find dirt on Biden or his son. The transcript didn’t reflect this exchange. In fact, it would be difficult to infer that this was Trump’s intent. Other people believed that Trump’s asking for a “favor” was intended to put pressure on Zelenskyy to conduct the investigation. Most of us outside of politics often ask people for favors without any kind of threat implication.
Without listing additional “interpretations” of the transcript, other commentators challenged, more puzzled than angry, the interpretation of the Leftist commentators, saying that Trump had not said what they stated. Several of them protested these challenges and said, “That’s exactly what he said.” Not “I believe he meant to say that,” or “We could infer he meant that,” or any number of qualifiers. They insisted that he had said exactly what they stated. On hearing this statement at least three times in 24 hours, I was, to say the least, unnerved.
In addition, the Left has either ignored or discounted Joe Biden’s quid pro quo statement to the Ukrainians that they needed to fire a prosecutor or the US would withhold funds. I continue to be baffled at the Left’s reaction (or lack of it).
Many people have called the Left, including media and politicians, “unhinged.” The level of self-deception, rejection of information that could contradict their narrative, or the vehemence that colors their beliefs is dangerous. With the losses they’ve experienced due to the failure of the Russian hoax, the wasted efforts of the Mueller report, and even the lack of success with the latest attack on Brett Kavanaugh, I see Republicans ridiculing the Democrats’ impeachment efforts, and I understand their view. These actions are beyond the pale, are certain to fail, and we can sit by and watch the Democrats implode.
Really?
Some folks are assuming that once Durham and Barr finish their investigation, the Left will back down. In fact, I suspect they will double-down.
I think that Republicans have to be proactive in discounting and countering this narrative, and they can’t afford to wait. They must find creative and even unconventional ways to speak out. We can hope that the public will see the irrationality and lies that the Left is promulgating, but are we so sure that the public will see through their words? With Donald Trump’s unpredictability, do we know for certain that we can trust the public to see something at least closer to the truth?
I’m not so sure, and I’m very concerned.
Published in Politics
Thank you for this @susanquinn … balanced as always.
Indeed it is the Socialist Left in America that is unhinged. They truly believe that if a GOP President is elected, it must be “illegitimate”. And that is whether such President is Donald J. Trump, Mitt Romney or some other candidate supported by the David French-ism within the gOp. Look no further than Justice Brett Kavanaugh. There is no “morally fit” (wretch) candidate that the democrats will ever acknowledge as legitimate and who will not be prey to their disgusting and morally reprehensible attacks. They are sick.
President Trump is a fighter. His election was symmetrical; in keeping with the laws of physics. The horrible eight years of the previous administration created a swell in the electorate to reject those years by putting in the office a man who was unafraid to “change it back”. Bigly.
So democrats. It’s the bed you made. Sleep in it. In the words of your Speaker … ‘Embrace the suck’.
Thanks, @columbo. I didn’t add in the OP that those of us on the Right also have confirmation bias. But ours is more restrained and I find there are times that I’m willing to listen to other points of view. And I don’t scream in public or call for people to attack others. Confirmation bias is on a spectrum, and the Left is off the scale.
People are capable of lots of self delusion.
You say “confirmation bias,” I say “deliberate lies.”
CNN Just Yadda-Yadda-Yadda’d 540 Words To Frame Trump For ‘Favor’ He Never Requested
NPR and MSNBC did the same thing. That little ellipsis after “favor” skips over 540 words.
Deliberately lying.
We all have confirmation bias but some of us have narrower biases to confirm. I am open to the need to examine a number of things that occur at or around the same time to check for the possibility that there are meanings not evident in the words that are spoken. But when you do that you are creating a narrative, not simply relying on a undisputable data point. And once you rely on the narrative you are acting on a preference to organize data in a way which best makes sense to you. If you believe “Orange Man Bad” then you can come up with a reason for blaming bad weather on Trump — and they do.
This type of confirmation bias exists on Ricochet. Listen to yesterday’s Three Martini Lunch, with its chin-pulling about how “problematic” the transcript is for Trump.
For example, using Twitter?
I don’t disagree, Drew. I would suggest that for many of them, confirmation bias is the cause behind most of the lies. They can give all the excuses they wish for doing these things, but they are absolutely determined to present their views, lies or not. Confirmation bias is behind these efforts, I believe.
I know what you mean. My wife deludes herself into thinking I’m not as hot as I think I am . . .
I see confirmation bias as something that is almost unconscious that we must internally work against to get to the truth. What I see the media and the Democrats doing is consciously and deliberately distorting the truth. So I can’t use the term “confirmation bias” here. They know what they’re doing. They’re doing it on purpose.
I fully agree, @seawriter. Everyone is subject to it. Including me! I think what is key is recognizing at least to some degree what you are doing, and in the case of the Democrats and media, understanding and appreciation the damage that can be caused with lies. Clearly, they don’t care, or are fully determined to destroy everything in their way.
. . . and they are doing it on purpose precisely because they know, are thoroughly convinced, that Trump is dangerous. And I do agree we all should at least be struggling with it, since we are all subject to it.
This is another example of why paying attention to the media and trying to get direct information. There are some sites – such as https://theconservativetreehouse.com/ – have not only a commentary, but have direct links to both video and transcripts*. CSPAN is also an option – my wife and I just finished listening to the hearings (headed by Schiff) about the whistle-blower on the Ukraine phone call. Now that both the call transcript and the whistle-blower complaint are published, this seems to be just another way to create a media hubbub.
@drewinwisconsin – It is one thing for CNN and MSNBC to do this sort of
biasedlying reporting, but PBS should lose any sort of government subsidy. I don’t want my tax dollars to go for this sort of misinformation.*over the past few days, there has been a good summary of all of the ‘Bilats’ (bilateral meetings) Trump has had at the UN. They have been remarkable and as near as I can tell, nearly ignored by the MSM. As our local (WMAL) morning talk show – Chris Plante – often says, “The most important power the press has is the power to ignore”
But if you suggest that, then you’re an evil person for trying to kill Big Bird. PBS must be funded “for the children.” The left is always waving the bloody diaper.
BTW Drew, I’ve thought more about your comment and the lying. I think it’s possible that everyone isn’t acting out of confirmation bias, but I’d guess that they’ve been overcome by pure hatred or evil. It’s possible.
I think the confirmation bias exists at the consumer level. But at the information dissemination level (e.g., the media), I think it’s deliberate.
“My goodness me, what do they teach them in the schools these days?”
“Logic! Why don’t they teach logic in these schools?”
Makes the students who take it less likely to vote Democrat. It also makes the students more likely to question the fallacies their teachers are teaching them.
Bingo.
There is a difference between the people who feed the confirmation bias and know it’s not true, but just want to anger/scare others, and the others who accept things that fit their confirmation bias at face value. And sometimes that works in unplanned ways, as with The New York Times’ outing of the whistleblower as a CIA agent today, and the huge negative reaction it got from its readers.
The Times knows nothing’s going to happen to this guy/gal — if anything, they’ll be feted as a hero like Valerie Plame was 15 years ago. So to them, it made sense to reveal the whistleblower was CIA, because in their minds, it enhanced the story against Trump’s credibility. But when you’ve spent the past four years feeding your readers confirmation biases that Trump=Hitler, they don’t see it that way. They really think the person is going to be retaliated against, and probably not just have his or her career destroyed, but also face the prospect of physical violence by Trump’s minions.
They’re outraged that the Times has probably given this poor CIA agent a death sentence, because the Times has been feeding them what they’ve wanted to hear since 2015 about Trump being the Worst Human Being in the History of the World. So you have hyperbolic politicians and media feeding their supporters things they really don’t believe, and then, at least in today’s case with the Times, being shocked that those people are hyperbolic against them because of what they did in trying to bolster the weakening case against Trump on putting a quid pro quo to the Ukrainians, as Biden may have done when he forced the Ukranians to oust Shokin.
Susan, you neglected to say BIRM (but I repeat myself) after, “Democrats and the media”. Be sure this doesn’t happen again or I may have to report a Style Guide infraction.
Absolutely correct that the right cannot take the left’s aggression, just because it’s wrong, as self correcting. Moving mobs until the story enjoys a significant public understanding is what they know. Their stories have to be aggressively corrected forcing them to change stories. The next story will also be fabrication but the same thing must be done. It’s amazing that their public just goes along. The going along is the reason they must sustain the hate in which it exists. So in between aggressively correcting their stories we must put forth positive views that attempt to reduce the hate which keeps them alive. This is going on in a robust economy. Imagine what will happen when the economy turns down as it always does.
And many of those words in between were spoken by Zelenskyy. So it wasn’t like taking one Trump comment and editing it, it was editing together two of Trump’s comments.
The president does shift the conversation to the Bidens by saying “The other thing.” Sounds like he is changing topics (done with the favor moving on to the next issue), but some could say he meant the other favor . . . confirmation bias.
Unless I’m getting documents confused, I was amazed that the “whistleblower” complaint was a long multi-page document with listed legalistic arguments, etc. That didn’t strike me as what a whistleblower would prepare all alone, or overnight after being shocked by some element of an overheard phone call. I think something was being “prepared” for awhile prior to the call, as zany as that sounds, the way the military comes up with response scenarios before incidents even happen – in order to be able to pounce on them. Then all that is needed is a little editing and a dependably hysterical press to run with it.
Why does that sound zany? The whole Muller Investigation was a coup attempt by Washington Bureaucrats. If at first you don’t succeed . . .
So sorry! My bad! ;-)
From what I’ve been reading, it sounds like it was “prepared” by none other than Fusion GPS, same people who gave us the Pee Dossier. And it’s got Schiff’s stink all over it.
A couple of sources on that:
https://nypost.com/2019/09/26/the-trump-ukraine-whistleblower-complaint-looks-just-like-steele-dossier-2-0/
(Thread) https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1177254925518213120
(Thread) https://twitter.com/FredFleitz/status/1177206661603348480
It just gets uglier and uglier. Thanks, Drew. I think.
Looking back on the Clinton impeachment, the result was that Clinton’s popularity and approval ratings went up, and Dems did very well in the next off year election. The same thing ought to happen here. But I have two worries. First, Clinton managed to come across as somewhat sympathetic and even a little bit contrite (phony contrition, but still…). Trump won’t, of course. He will be belligerent and angry.
Second, the Republicans who called for Clinton’s impeachment never seemed entirely sincere. They may have made impassioned speeches for impeachment, but they never seemed like they completely believed it. It always seemed (at least to me) like the Republicans knew that they were pulling a political stunt. Not true of the deranged Democrats of today. They reek with sincerity. They honestly have no idea that they are telling ridiculous lies. Their hatred of Trump infuses their screeds with self-righteous indignation that comes across as real because it is real. I worry that the American people are suckers for sincerity. Bad enough that a lie can travel around the world twice before the truth can get its pants on; it is even worse when the lie is turbocharged with such deranged conviction.
Logic? How about simple reading?