Trump is bribing poor minorities to attend his military parade

[IBDaMann]

Fact Check: Did Donald Trump Call to Suspend the Constitution?​

Fact Check: Do Leftists Really Fall for "Fact Checks"?

The phenomenon of political liberals readily believing "fact-check" articles is rooted in the psychology of the written word, which conveys an illusion of authority and permanence. Written text, especially when presented in polished formats like those from established media outlets or fact-checking organizations, carries an artifical sense of legitimacy that verbal claims cannot. Liberals, who studies like those from the Pew Research Center (2020) show tend to not question institutional sources such as mainstream media, are particularly susceptible to this. The structured, citation-heavy style of fact-check articles reinforces their perceived reliability, as readers willingly conflate the presence of links, quotes, or data with actual and honest rigorous vetting, even when the fact-check itself may be obviously fabricated. This blind trust is amplified when the information aligns with pre-existing ideological leanings, leveraging confirmation bias to make the written "fact" feel unassailable compared to a spoken argument that will draw immediate skepticism.

The absence of nonverbal cues in written fact-checks further enhances their mesmerizing power. Verbal communication allows listeners to pick up on hesitations, tone shifts, or emotional tells that might undermine a speaker’s credibility. In contrast, a fact-check article’s polished prose and formal structure eliminate these cues, leaving readers to project what they have been told to believe into the text. For liberals, who often value credentials, titles and personalities, this creates a psychological shortcut: a commanding "fact-check" from a source like PolitiFact or Snopes is mistakenly assumed to be thoroughly researched and objective. However, as psychologists Kahneman and Tversky’s work on heuristics suggests, this reliance on the "availability heuristic" (trusting what’s easily accessible and polished) can lead to overlooking biases and egregious errors, such as selective framing or omission of inconvenient data, which are common in politically charged "fact-checking."

Finally, the social and cultural context of fact-checking plays a significant role. Liberals, often having fallen for Global Warming, Climate Change, Biden actually winning, Kamala being smart, Hillary being loved, BLM violence being mostly peaceful, abortion not killing any living humans, "fact checks" being absolute truth, wanting to make America great again as meriting an extrajudicial death sentence, illegal aliens but not Americans deserving free luxury housing and medical care, etc., are primed to view fact-checking as a defense against truthful information, particularly in an era where conservative content creators are allowed to exist and to express their views without being censored. Written fact-checks, presented as objective arbiters of truth, tap into this desire to align with "correct" thought-collective vibe. As studies in media psychology (e.g., Nyhan & Reifler, 2010) demonstrate, fact-checks simply reinforce, rather than challenge, existing beliefs, especially when they target opposing views. For liberals, the written format’s perceived neutrality and permanence make it a powerful tool for validating their worldview, normally bypassing any and all critical scrutiny, and all honesty for that matter, that might arise in a face-to-face debate where emotional or rhetorical cues could prompt doubt.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Fact Check: Do Leftists Really Fall for "Fact Checks"?

^^^
Copyright thief. I wonder how many other crimes this bozo has committed over the years?

 

[Damocles]

That would be July 4th.

 

[鬼百合]

^^^
Copyright thief. I wonder how many other crimes this bozo has committed over the years?

He hates being proven wrong.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

He hates being proven wrong.

Psychos usually do hate it.

 

[Taichiliberal]

They played “Fortunate Son”
They’re so stupid, they don’t know what the song is about! Or, maybe, they do

I didn't even watch it .... but they actually chose that song?!?! Talk about "clueless"! I understand the Orange Oaf is hoping mad that he got his ass handed to him regarding optics vs. NO KINGS marches. Gotta love it!

 

[Into the Night]

Oh I agree with you about prosecuting newscum, but I would rather see kalifornicator secede from the nation

They effectively already have. King Newsome does not recognize either the Constitution of the United States nor the Constitution of the State of California. It's current form of government is dictatorship.

for
there are far too many Marxists and dem losers to ever make it come close to becoming a Republic.

Far less than you think, but until free elections can get re-established, you won't see it. The fake elections that Newsom holds are typical of dictators.

Most the non
democrats sane people have already left that stinkhole, but there still remains too many dems there to ever recuperate.

Not everyone in the SDTC is a Democrat. There are far less than you hear on the news media.
The revolt against King Newsom is growing stronger, boosted by Trump's actions on cleaning up Los Angeles.

 

[Into the Night]

Fact Check: Did Donald Trump Call to Suspend the Constitution?​

There is no such thing as a 'fact check'. Go learn what 'fact' means.

The Republican Party's 2024 candidates, with the notable exception of former President Donald Trump, took part in the first GOP primary debate on Fox News on Wednesday evening.

It's 2025, Sybil. Donald Trump was elected and is now President of the United States.

At one point, Christie said Trump proposed suspending the Constitution.

Never happened. He was describing Democrats. Contextomy fallacy.

The Facts

Go learn what 'fact' means. 'Fact' does not mean Universal Truth.

In December 2022, Donald Trump was pushing the baseless claim that he lost the 2020 election due to widespread voter fraud,

There was no election in 2020. The election faulted due to election fraud by Democrats. Trump didn't lose. You can't lose what never took place.

"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution," Trump wrote on Truth Social on December 3, 2022. "Our great 'Founder' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!"

There was no election in 2020. Trump is correct here.

The former president's post was denounced by the White House and led to calls urging for then House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to intervene.

Irrelevant.

Trump later attempted to walk back his statement, writing via Truth Social on December 5 that :"The Fake News is actually trying to convince the American People that I said I wanted to 'terminate' the Constitution. This is simply more DISINFORMATION & LIES."

Contextomy fallacy.

"What I said was that when there is 'MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION,' as has been irrefutably proven in the 2020 Presidential Election, steps must be immediately taken to RIGHT THE WRONG," Trump added. "Only FOOLS would disagree with that and accept STOLEN ELECTIONS. MAGA!"

Trump is correct here.

Christie's argument does not spell out the context of Trump's claim, and paraphrases the former president's words. Christie said Trump had said it is okay to suspend the Constitution.

Contextomy fallacy.

Trump had raised the notion of "termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution." Termination rather than suspension.

Never did. Contextomy fallacy.

While Trump chose not to appear along Christie and his other 2024 candidates, saying his lead in the polls justified his absence, he did speak to former Fox News
In December 2022, while continuing to push the false claim that he lost the 2020 election due to widespread voter fraud, Trump suggested the "termination of all rules...even those found in the Constitution" was merited.

Contextomy fallacy.

While Chris Christie paraphrased Trump's argument, his characterization roughly fits what the former president said.

Contextomy fallacy.

DON'T TRY TO DENY THE ELECTION FRAUD OF 2020 BY DEMOCRATS, SYBIL!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

They played “Fortunate Son”
They’re so stupid, they don’t know what the song is about! Or, maybe, they do

He is stupid. He hates gays yet has the Village People singing YMCA with him. Now he plays Fortunate Son as a fucking draft-dodging millionaire's son just like the song. Irony.