@Quix said:
Yes, agreed and probably most of his supporters would also agree. But, none of us, I suspect, would want to throw out the baby with the bath water as so many of Trump’s misguided conservative critics here seem so determined to do.
Yeah.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that, though.
A lot of the contrarian naysayers seem to demonstrate a ton of psycho-dynamic crap pretending to be righteous skepticism.
Periodically, I get my fill of that junk and don't care to bother that much with them for however long.
They don't seem to care about the evidence. Every shred of evidence is twisted & mangled into their construction on reality. Don't confuse them with facts.
They are addicted to an OCD level to paranoia about committing a false positive error. They pretend to be quite super rational in demanding a "scientific," laboratory, Supreme Court level of "proof." Yet, they show about 0.0001% understanding of the scientific fact that such an extreme addiction to fear of committing a false positive error leaves them stacking up tons of probability to the point of certainty that a slew of false negative errors will bite them in their rears.
Ahhhh wellll. So be it.
Those who are resistant to being teachable; resistant to being fair-minded; resistant to thinking outside their usual tidy little boxes will eventually experience their share of being wrong.
They seem to claim that their dyed-in-the-wool skepticism is righteously and objectively originated. Nonsense. It is psycho-dynamically generated and maintained. It is their deeply entrenched defense against their own anxieties about potentially being seen as wrong about anything.
Anyway . . . imho.
Thanks for your kind post. Most of the nonsense on this thread that goes for such 'astute & discerning' skepticism is farcical, imho.