follow CCP

Recent blog entries
popular papers

Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing

What Is the "Science of Science Communication"?

Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

'Ideology' or 'Situation Sense'? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment

A Risky Science Communication Environment for Vaccines

Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government

Making Climate Science Communication Evidence-based—All the Way Down 

Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law 

Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus
 

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Science Literacy and Climate Change

"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction 

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: a Cross-Cultural Experiment

Fixing the Communications Failure

Why We Are Poles Apart on Climate Change

The Cognitively Illiberal State 

Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study

Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology

Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? An Empirical Examination of Scott v. Harris

Cultural Cognition and Public Policy

Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in "Acquaintance Rape" Cases

Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect

Fear of Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk

Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk

« WSMD? JA! Political orientation, religiosity & vaccine-risk perceptions | Main | Cognitive Science of Religion & acceptance of evolution »
Thursday
Apr052018

WSMD? JA! Two trends in 1--nuclear power risk perception

This is approximately the 100,333rd episode in the insanely popular CCP series, "Wanna see more data? Just ask!," the game in which commentators compete for world-wide recognition and fame by proposing amazingly clever hypotheses that can be tested by re-analyzing data collected in one or another CCP study. For "WSMD?, JA!" rules and conditions (including the mandatory release from defamation claims), click here.

After taking a look at “yesterday™’s post, loyal reader & professional science communicator @TamarHaspel asked if there was comparable data available for risks posed by nuclear power.

After only mild encouragement, she also gamely (this is a game, after all) ventured her own prediction about what the data would show:

Well? Is this what the data show?  No, not really:

She didn’t nail it, but her surmise was a very logical and defensible one.

Here’s some data that might have helped @Tamar formulate a hypothesis even closer to the observed result:

Basically, for nearly all perceived risks that are free of partisan disagreement, there is a general bipartisan downward trend in relation to the Ordinary Science Intelligence assessment.

Nuclear power risk perceptions are not totally free of partisan disagreement:

But the degree of partisan disagreement is small compareD to the degree of disagreement one can observe for climate change, say, or fracking or private gun ownership

Knowing that, one might have conjectured that we’d observe downward trends of nuclear power risk perceptions but at different rates for respondents of different political outlooks.

Or maybe not!

Anyway, this was a very worthwhile game of WSMD? JA! For sure @TamarHaspel has earned a prize from the CCP gift catalog.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (38)

On the key graph, what does "below average left-right" mean?

From the referenced paper ("Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing") I understand that"

“Left_right” is political outlook scale formed by aggregation of 5-point liberal-conservative ideology and 7-point partisan identification items

But what is "above" or "below" on that scale?

April 6, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterCortlandt

@Cortlandt-- the scale is valenced toward right-leaning outlooks. The midpoint or average level is "independent/middle of the road"; below avg is left-leaning, above right-leaning.

April 6, 2018 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

I think that the "science of science communication, " to maintain relevance and salience, must increasingly overlap with an understanding of the context communication domains.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january-february-march-2018/how-to-fix-facebook-before-it-fixes-us/

April 6, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Jonathan -

Not entirely sure why, but I thought you might find this interesting.

https://aeon.co/amp/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer?__twitter_impression=true

Condolences on Irving (could Sixers now have a chance if they meet in 2nd round?).

April 6, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Joshua,

Thanks for that aeon article. I've read others like it before. The problem is that it addresses a common mistake (the direct comparison of the brain to the standard Von Neumann architecture digital computer) by making other mistakes (not noting that general computation isn't bound to a particular architecture, not understanding Turing equivalence and Church's thesis).

As for Irving, well, I had already written this season off 6 minutes into the first game, but was pleasantly surprised they managed as well as they did until now. Congrats on 'Nova.

April 7, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

Ok. Googled Church's thesis, but couldn't understand it will enough to get your point. Could you try to explain a bit in relatively simple terms how you think his analysis wrong?

So basically, you're going with the "We're playing with house money" protection defense against potential Celtics loss in playoffs? That seems a bit of a stretch, given how well they've done after Irving went down, and despite all the other injuries. Not sure I'm buying it as a gambit. I still look at the C's as the 2nd most likely to advance out of the East, and likely to beat the Sixers should they match up.

Although...

https://www.numberfire.com/nba/news/19573/without-kyrie-irving-exactly-how-far-do-the-celtics-nba-title-odds-drop

https://www.onlinegambling.com/news/2018/04/kyrie-irving-out-for-season-boston-celtics-see-nba-title-odds-plummet/

http://www.vegasinsider.com/nba/odds/futures/

April 8, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Ok. Googled Church's thesis, but couldn't understand it will enough to get your point. Could you try to explain a bit in relatively simple terms how you think his analysis wrong?

So basically, you're going with the "We're playing with house money" protection defense against potential Celtics loss in playoffs? That seems a bit of a stretch, given how well they've done after Irving went down, and despite all the other injuries. Not sure I'm buying it as a gambit. I still look at the C's as the 2nd most likely to advance out of the East, and likely to beat the Sixers should they match up.

Although...

https://www.numberfire.com/nba/news/19573/without-kyrie-irving-exactly-how-far-do-the-celtics-nba-title-odds-drop

https://www.onlinegambling.com/news/2018/04/kyrie-irving-out-for-season-boston-celtics-see-nba-title-odds-plummet/

April 8, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

?
http://andrewgelman.com/2018/04/11/failure-failure-replicate/#more-36701

April 11, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

As I believe I've noted in previous game episodes, WSMD?, JA! needs greater context.

IMHO, we can't really talk about the questions above in a science informed fashion without greater nuance. More broadly, we need to think about culture, and how cultures handle cultural change.

At one extreme would be cultures with the philosophy "First, do no harm". At the other would be a mantra attributed to Facebook: "Move Fast, Break Things". That end also fits in with “Take the Money and Run”. There are other dimensions of philosophical thought, including one in which a superior being has a preset plan for your life, until you are gloriously rescued and others brutally punished in a world shattering Armageddon. In which, bad things, war and warming for example, might be good signs of the good/bad time to come, or at least, not matter much in the overall scheme of things, Armageddon being much more intense than anyone's rendering of Global Climate Change impacts.

These do not exactly segue with Democrat/Republican, liberal/conservative divisions. I'd note that Tamara's description of people that adapt (certain) technological solutions readily does not fit with the definition of “conservative”.

In terms of nuance to the above questions, we need to know more about what people mean when they talk about energy resources. This thought process actually includes knowledge of current technologies and ability to project possible improvements in the future. As part of determining statistical robustness, differences in the measured audience need to be considered. College educated, and ability to answer a few science related questions correctly, does not mitigate the confounding differences in framework of students of say, business, sociology or engineering.

Consideration of time frames is crucial. Up until recently, it had seemed that risk issues with fossil fuels could be resolved by short term regulations like under OSHA and the Clean Air Act. The realization that CO2 emissions seriously impact global climate ought to transform how we think about energy use.

Short term, if existing coal miners in Appalachia can only make it to retirement, they will be economically much better off. They aren't prepared for other lines of work at similar pay, certainly not in locations where they probably already own their homes. Between now and retirement, odds are that they won't be the ones that die or are seriously injured in an industrial accident, and additional harms to their lungs and potential for black lung disease would be hard to determine. Climate change, should they care to think about it, does not have serious impacts for the Appalachian Mountain region over their remaining lifespan, or even that of their children. Especially if you contrast this with the serious ecological, but safer coal job preserving, techniques of mountain top coal removal. Mine owners would clearly think themselves better off with more wealth. And then they would have their choice as to where to live. I imagine former fossil fuel oligarchs and their descendants setting up estates in the hills of Greenland. Sort of like the new Napa.

In the case of nuclear energy, the short term is mostly fine. Odds are quite strong that living next to a nuclear power plant is a very safe location, and any particular plant won't end up being the next Fukushima. Very much better than living next to a coal fired power plant, particularly an older one.

But we do need to think more carefully about the sorts of human propensity for short term expectations and corner cutting that allowed the Fukushima incident to occur. In particular, in that part of Japan, some 700 years ago, large stones with engraved warnings were installed that were intended to alert future residents of the elevation levels to which a tsunami had reached, and could reach again. These were, of course, ignored and then forgotten.

This of course, leads to the long term issue regarding nuclear power, waste disposal. Which no nation has effectively dealt with yet. Japan doesn't really have the space to allow for many Fukushimas, and disposal sites will be limited. The US is fortunate in having a lot of space compared to Japan. Yucca Mountain, Nevada is still a very remote place. But the future is hard to predict. Even now, some of its attributes are fast becoming human attractions. It is in the land locked Basin and Range, where drainages and aquifers lead nowhere. A big plus from a waste disposal point of view. Mountain ranges surrounded by generally dry salt lake valleys sound great when thinking about avoiding water contamination hazards, but now also attractive as mineral resource sources for newly highly desirable substances, including lithium. The mountain itself is in a seismically active region, and many other mineral resources are attractive. If we enter a metals short future the metal casks and other materials that make up the repository could themselves become attractive. Transport is also a big issue, especially considering that most rail lines and highways run directly through major metropolitan areas. So far, we've coped with that with such things as oil pipelines and trains. But a derailment, or even an explosion, like the one at Lac-Mégantic, while disastrous, does not eliminate future land use there.

We can't rule out the possibility of nuclear waste as a form of weapon. An odd current example is this one in which Soudi Arabia plans to punish and isolate its neighbor, Qatar by locating a nuclear waste dump on its border: https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-04-09/saudi-mulls-military-base-nuclear-dump-near-qatar-report-says. Previously of course, oil fields were set on fire, which has its own set of short and long term environmental consequences.

Fossil Fuel use created socio-economic structures that led to the societies we have today. Transitions to other forms of energy allow the more deliberate selection of cultural frameworks for our future. In particular, nuclear fuel use, by current conventional methods, leads to a heavily centralized society one in which security is important. Renewables could promote decentralization, even off grid isolation.

One of the biggest problems with the needed energy transitions are the difficulties in calculating their impacts as part of a total energy use budget. Building a new nuclear power plant and later disposing of the waste) or constructing wind generation towers or solar cells, all require, at this point, considerable expenditure of fossil fuel energy.

It shouldn't be a simple question, and there are no quick and easy answers.

April 11, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterGaythia Weis

Jonathan -

Thought you might like this:

https://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

(I'm dubious).

April 12, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Dan =

I thought you might like this:

https://climateone.org/events/new-political-climate

Perhaps an interesting person for you to do a case study:

https://climateone.org/people/debbie-dooley

April 12, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Hilarious moment of self-reflection on the New York Times - with side-swipe at "psychological studies".

"Why has Trump dominated? Part of it is tribalism. In any tribal war people tend to bury individual concerns and rally to their leader and the party line. As late as 2015, Republican voters overwhelmingly supported free trade. Now they overwhelmingly oppose it. The shift didn’t happen because of some mass reappraisal of the evidence; it’s just that tribal orthodoxy shifted and everyone followed.

Part of the problem is that anti-Trumpism has a tendency to be insufferably condescending. For example, my colleague Thomas B. Edsall beautifully summarized the recent academic analyses of what personality traits supposedly determine Trump support."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/opinion/trump-republicans.html

April 12, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

Might the Kentucky farmer be common? (Joshua: longitudinal!)

"Believing in climate change, but not behaving sustainably: Evidence from a one-year longitudinal study":

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494418301488

...the “Highly Concerned” were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions, whereas the “Skeptical” opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors.

(can't find a non-paywall version)

April 12, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

Jonathan -

Top bad no paywalled version. That's a pretty interesting finding.

April 12, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Too bad no non-paywalled version, that should have been.

---------------

At any rate, from the article that Ecoute linked above (thanks, Ecoute, I happen to largely agree with Brooks there, and think he did a nice job of describing the situation rather concisely)...

As late as 2015, Republican voters overwhelmingly supported free trade. Now they overwhelmingly oppose it. The shift didn’t happen because of some mass reappraisal of the evidence; it’s just that tribal orthodoxy shifted and everyone followed.

I'm still stumped by stuff like this because I can't quite reconcile that type of pattern (which is ubiquitous) with one of Dan's major lines of argumentation - that polarization on climate change (and some other issues) is, at least to some degree?, driven by the underlying mechanisms that also lead to differences in tests of scientific knowledge, cognitive attributes, etc.

And looking past the vagueness in how Brooks determined whether people are "opposed" to "free trade."

(1) I don't see any particular reason why "science" reasoning is (in some sense taxonomically) different than the type of reasoning that takes place when people evaluate the benefits/costs ratio of free trade.

(2) It doesn't seem likely to me that cognitive attributes or knowledge levels would go very far at all in explaining (as a causal mechanism) how Republicans formulate their views on free trade.

(3) Neither, given the reversal that Brooks describes, does it seem to me, that "values" (as described in matrices that are based in metrics such as "hierarchical individualist" or "egalitarian communitarian") go very far in explaining how Republicans are formulating their views on free trade. I.e., have Republicans' "values" largely shifted a matter of a few years?

So, I'm left thinking that what explains the tribalism, and thus degree of polarization, on issues like free trade or issues like climate change is, I suppose tautologically, how tribalistically identified people are.

Of course, that ducks the question of what explains why some people are more tribalistic than others. And it doesn't explain the data patterns that Dan points to - whereby polarization on climate change and some other issues is correlated with certain test scores and knowledge in certain subject areas.

Which, then just leads me back to wishing that we had some longitudinal, RCT-type data, collected in real world contexts, to help with these issues.

April 13, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

"Too bad no non-paywalled version..." Found it!:

https://osf.io/bd4fn/

April 13, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

Jonathan -

Good detective work. So maybe it's actually a bizarro world Kentucky Farmer effect?

April 13, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Joshua,

If by bizarro world you mean MTurk, then maybe so. I've never seen a longitudinal MTurk study before, and didn't know that one was even possible. But, I'm less dismissive of MTurk results than some nameless others. Also, they at least went to the trouble to get some geographic and age distribution. So, despite is MTurkiness, I rate it as intriguing (with raised eyebrow emoji).

April 13, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

My favorite part:

Despite these findings about climate change beliefs, self-reported behaviors, and policy support, we were unable to explain why the “Skeptical” low-believers were more likely to self-report more pro-environmental behavior than high-believers. For instance, the “Skeptical” did not report greater identity fit with environmentalism, endorse greater beliefs in individual and political efficacy to reduce climate change, and were not associated with logical demographic factors (e.g., political ideology, income, education).

So "pro-environmental behavior" wasn't coupled with belief in individual and political efficacy to reduce climate change. In an odd way, that makes complete sense to me (because, indeed, why would anyone think that individual behavior would materially reduce climate change or materially influence the politics of climate change? Fascinating. Maybe "realists" should stop beating up themselves and others about individual carbon footprints (if only to deny "skeptics" the pleasure of watching them do it)?

April 13, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Jonathan -

I appreciate that they included a limitations discussion - including some discussion of the limitations of using MTurk.

Recently, I've been thinking that I should just read limitations sections of papers and skip the rest (and ignore papers that don't have limitation sections).

April 13, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

From the limitations section:

Or, perhaps the “Highly Concerned” felt that federal policies were the more effective means of addressing climate change (vs. individual pro-environmental behaviors).

Seems like logical speculation to me. I'm sure that "skeptics" could just argue that the "highly concerned" are just virtue-signalling hypocrites (not to mention capitalism/America-hating, one-world-government-worshiping, PC-loving, chicken little fanatics).

April 13, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Joshua,

It's not likely to be virtue signalling:

However, social desirability is an unlikely explanation for our effects: Socially desirable responding would predict that the “Highly Concerned,” not the “Skeptical,” would be more likely to inaccurately inflate their reporting of pro-environmental behavior.

Also, if more liberals (hence climate change "highly concerned") are urban, shouldn't that provide an increased opportunity to use public transportation (one of their pro-environmental behaviors) on a regular basis? So that adds to my surprise.

April 13, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

Tribalism is the new PC favorite explanation for support for president Trump:

"..political analysts tend to overestimate the importance of policy in politics, and underestimate the importance of tribalism"
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2018/04/daily-chart-8

.

April 14, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

Political correctness is the new rightwing favorite explanation for support for anything that isn't rightwing.

April 14, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Jonathan - on your climate change study, the left's preference for government action probably explains the sample's inaction at the personal level. That, and of course the fact the left is almost exclusively composed of "virtue-signalling hypocrites (not to mention capitalism/America-hating, one-world-government-worshiping, PC-loving, chicken little fanatics)". Which list I would amend to include Western_Civilization-hating. Tribalism (mine) in action.

April 14, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

Ecoute -

This is for you, and any other alt-righters who are snowflaking around, in search of safe spaces for their right wing beliefs.

April 14, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Oops. Forgot the link.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/04/08/tony-robbins-suggested-metoo-was-about-victimhood-now-hes-apologizing/?utm_term=.a64c6c380551

April 14, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

About half the Twitter accounts posting on MeToo are bots run by my friend Microchip - longtime readers of this blog will remember proof he provided, and I reposted, on the alleged Russian trolls, overwhelmingly ours, not Russians at all.

Micro's brilliant maneuver on MeToo involved splitting up that entire movement by having his botnet comment on those pink "pussyhats". About half his bots claimed to be black women objecting to the "pink" part, the other half claimed to be transgenders objecting to the "pussy" part. The resulting disarray among MeToo believers caused them to drop the stupid hats altogether.

It's been a longtime tenet of the alt-right that the way to utterly destroy political correctness is to ridicule it - recall that Socrates was not condemned to death by any theological purists, but rather by Aristophanes, who satirized him mercilessly. Very few people on the left understand this, and naturally we don't advertise, but I've spotted a couple who do - fortunately getting no traction - and will post their report here, in the certainty it will not penetrate the PC mind:

"..–Traditional counter-messaging campaigns are unlikely to have an impact on the cynical and tech-savvy alt-right. [..] . Positive alternative narratives have been ruthlessly mocked and assaulted by the extreme-right, and have the effect of reinforcing their narratives...."

https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/The-Fringe-Insurgency-221017.pdf

April 14, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

Ecoute -

Micro's brilliant maneuver on MeToo involved splitting up that entire movement..

Yes, indeed. The "entire movement" has been "split up." Just a relic of the past.

Why it's almost been 4 months since a million women marched under the MeToo banner.

Clearly Robbins is convinced that the "entire movement' has been "split up." I mean it isn't like he's apologizing because he thinks they still have any relevance, and so might affect his business model. No way. I'm sure he's apologizing because of deep introspection.

I'm so impressed by your friend's work.

And I see that you're keeping the alt-right's monopoly on humor alive and well (even if, in your case, the humor is unintentional).

April 14, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Ecoute -

Very few people on the left understand this.

Indeed, outside of obscure figures such as Colbert, Stewart, Noah, Kimmel, Maher, Bee, Oliver, Myers, the cast of SNL, and many, many others, I can't think of anyone on "the left" who understands the appeal of political satire (and satirizing political correctness on the right).

And even if they did, how could they possibly compete with fat jokes effectively?

April 14, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Moral Licensing might help explain that Hall paper (trigger warning: asymmetric findings):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/04/04/democrats-and-republicans-were-prompted-to-recycle-youll-be-surprised-what-happened-next/

April 14, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

Found this other Hall paper while searching for more info about the above Hall paper:

http://neurosciencenews.com/superiority-complex-knowledge-8772/

(again, no non-paywall version... yet...)

Anyway - the interesting thing to me is that those superior belief folks fully acknowledge their biased pursuit of info!

April 14, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

Anyone who disagrees with fat black civilian Pentagon spokeswoman Ms White is a Russian troll - tho woman is too stupid to even keep her lines straight. She attributes to SecDef gen. Mattis the claim "we have seen a 2,000% increase in Russian trolls in the last 24 hours". Gen. Mattis NEVER said that. Last minute on this video:
https://www.defense.gov/Videos/videoid/594372/

To re-state the obvious - this increase isn't due to any Russians - it's overwhelmingly irate locals who want to avoid WWIII. And most locals have names:
https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter

April 14, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

Ecoute -

Do you have an actual quote? Here is what I found, which is notably different than what you said she said.

As Secretary Mattis said last night, the Russian disinformation campaign has already begun,” Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said in a press conference. “There has been a 2,000 percent increase in Russian trolls in the last 24 hours. Therefore, we will keep you all abreast of the facts moving forward.”

http://www.newsweek.com/russian-trolls-increased-2000-percent-after-syria-attack-pentagon-says-886248

There was also this:

Based on recent experience, we fully expect a significant disinformation campaign over the coming days by those who have aligned themselves with the Assad regime,” said Mattis, adding that White and Lieutenant General Kenneth F. McKenzie would speak “in effort to maintain transparency and accuracy.”

But perhaps that article got it wrong? Could you give a link that shows your statement about what said is accurate?

April 14, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Ecoute -

Sorry. Let me try reposting with the opening quotation marks his time.

"As Secretary Mattis said last night, the Russian disinformation campaign has already begun,” Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said in a press conference. “There has been a 2,000 percent increase in Russian trolls in the last 24 hours. Therefore, we will keep you all abreast of the facts moving forward.”

http://www.newsweek.com/russian-trolls-increased-2000-percent-after-syria-attack-pentagon-says-886248

There was also this:

"Based on recent experience, we fully expect a significant disinformation campaign over the coming days by those who have aligned themselves with the Assad regime,” said Mattis, adding that White and Lieutenant General Kenneth F. McKenzie would speak “in effort to maintain transparency and accuracy.”

But perhaps that article got it wrong? Could you give a link that shows your statement about what said is accurate?

April 14, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Is reading comprehension a lost art? Re-posting from above:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Anyone who disagrees with fat black civilian Pentagon spokeswoman Ms White is a Russian troll - tho woman is too stupid to even keep her lines straight. She attributes to SecDef gen. Mattis the claim "we have seen a 2,000% increase in Russian trolls in the last 24 hours". Gen. Mattis NEVER said that. Last minute on this video:
https://www.defense.gov/Videos/videoid/594372/

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

April 14, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

Ecoute -

Asidw from the fact that this is probably the most irrelevant issue, ever, related to chemical weapons and American bombing attacks...


Did you actually listen? You're wrong. She did not attribute the statement to Mattis that you said she attributed to him. The quote from the article I linked was correct

And btw, I see that you've dropped the transparent pretense of ignoring me. What caused you to do so?

April 14, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

In suburban Cook County (Illinois Third Congressional District) 20,233 humans (not bots) voted in the Republican primary for Art Jones to register their protest against the endless Middle East wars - top item in his platform:

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!

Our troops are sinking deeper into the abyss of unending wars in the Middle East. It’s time to end these wars that are so costly in lives lost and money wasted.

http://artjonesforcongressman.com/issues-congress-2016/#0
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The District has been gerrymandered over decades to be safely Democratic, so Jones isn't likely to win in the general election in November, but the protest vote is worth watching all the same, especially if some major disaster befalls us after this insane Syria attack. The Chicago Tribune, clearly panicked at the number of Jones voters, send reporters to interview some of them - did they know Jones had joined the Nazi march in Skokie? Most did, but figured first things first, second things never. Watch this space.

April 15, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>