University poll finds most Americans fear the “Deep State”

[Nous]

The definition of deep state from right wing media are people saying things against the president. Its ironic that they would call people deep state actors for leaking information about Trump praising Russia as they protect a President praising dictator type policies and sympathizing with Russia and China ideologies. I also heard Ryan and McConnell joined the deep state for disagreeing with Trump. Then there are tweets from Trump himself shifting blame of Russian collusion to Obama and Hillary as deep state actors. Trump literally feeds the deep state conspiracy theories and encourages it while simultaneously trying to stop and delegitimize any sort of investigation into the matter.

You have identified a very troubling irony.

 

[Stevicus]

Hmm.........

What?

 

[Stevicus]

Debunking conspiracy theories needn't be defense of government.

It often amounts to that, though.

(Indeed, one is acknowledging that government does wrong.)
This is worth doing because people get distracted by loopy theories,
which blame an unseen boogeyman, & they fail to see more useful
explanations for observed events & patterns.
It strikes me that this is to avoid responsibility for one's own actions,
eg, voting for a politician with a record of doing what one opposes.

This doesn't explain the passion and zeal behind it. I've seen people get downright angry and come unglued because they're upset over something a conspiracy theorist said. They get very heavy-handed, use abusive language, engage in the tactics of ridicule. It seems like a lot of emotionalism over something that could be calmly and easily dismissed as a "loopy theory." Oftentimes, it comes across as a case of "the lady doth protest too much, methinks." There's far too much posturing on the part of the "debunkers" that I sometimes wonder about them and their motives.

 

[Revoltingest]

It often amounts to that, though.

And it often doesn't.
(Are we going in circles yet?)
Example:
I debunked the chemtrail conspiracy with basic chemistry & fuel usage info.
Certainly, this was not to defend government.'
I defended rational thought.

This doesn't explain the passion and zeal behind it. I've seen people get downright angry and come unglued because they're upset over something a conspiracy theorist said. They get very heavy-handed, use abusive language, engage in the tactics of ridicule. It seems like a lot of emotionalism over something that could be calmly and easily dismissed as a "loopy theory." Oftentimes, it comes across as a case of "the lady doth protest too much, methinks." There's far too much posturing on the part of the "debunkers" that I sometimes wonder about them and their motives.

People sure do get emotional over things.
Know any side which is immune to that?

 

[Stevicus]

Can you provide some sinister examples of this "culture of secrecy"? What is it that the government needs to become more transparent about?

Anytime something is deemed "classified for reasons of national security." J. Edgar Hoover's activities, spying on Americans, keeping files on them. The CIA, NSA, military - they've all engaged in covert activities which are not generally known to the public until years or decades later, if ever.

Good points; good questions. The same phenomena confound me as well. Some positions on issues that are matters of our national conversation take on a religious nature. They become dogma. I really don't know why.

I often wonder myself. I don't see any need for it.

Since you brought up JFK, one interesting fact is that early surveys showed that most Americans disbelieved that Oswald was a lone gunman. I believe subsequent surveys have shown that this skepticism has gradually tended to wane, although there is still at least a substantial portion (perhaps still a majority) of Americans who doubt the official story.

I remember having a conversation with someone who got upset that I took a more agnostic approach to it. Maybe Oswald was the lone gunman, maybe not. I saw it more as a mystery that will probably never be solved, but one guy got upset over that and insisted that it's "no mystery." He was absolutely 100% certain that Oswald acted alone and anyone who didn't believe that, he would label as "paranoid" and use other dishonest and abusive tactics to make his case.

The conspiracy theorists (CTers) had no problem with my taking a neutral agnostic stance, but the LNers ("lone nutters" who believe Oswald acted alone) were the ones coming unglued, as if their religious beliefs had been challenged and they were acting as defenders of the faith.

But most people today were born after the JFK Assassination, so its level of significance in people's lives has waned and people just see it as water under the bridge. I don't think that many people really care anymore.

 

[Stevicus]

People sure do get emotional over things.
Know any side which is immune to that?

Generally, people get emotional over things they personally care about or have some sort of personal stake in. If I said something that was obviously wrong, like "2+2=5," then no one would get emotional over it. They'd simply correct the error and get on with their lives.

If someone does get emotional over some issue, it's fair to ask: Why do you care so much about this? What is your stake in the matter? Why bother?

If I get emotional about something and someone asks me why, I will have no problem with telling them. I'm actually pretty open about myself, and I recognize that I sometimes write walls of text to try to explain to people where I'm coming from about this issue or that issue.

This is why I have trouble understanding those who suddenly close up and refuse to explain themselves when asked. I see that as a dishonest tactic.

 

[Revoltingest]

Generally, people get emotional over things they personally care about or have some sort of personal stake in. If I said something that was obviously wrong, like "2+2=5," then no one would get emotional over it. They'd simply correct the error and get on with their lives.

If someone does get emotional over some issue, it's fair to ask: Why do you care so much about this? What is your stake in the matter? Why bother?

If I get emotional about something and someone asks me why, I will have no problem with telling them. I'm actually pretty open about myself, and I recognize that I sometimes write walls of text to try to explain to people where I'm coming from about this issue or that issue.

This is why I have trouble understanding those who suddenly close up and refuse to explain themselves when asked. I see that as a dishonest tactic.

So you think they're trying to mislead you in some way?

 

[Stevicus]

So you think they're trying to mislead you in some way?

It's a possibility.

The way I see it, for right or wrong, the apparent motives of conspiracy theorists are clearly rooted in a desire to promote a better, more responsible, honest and transparent government which serves the needs of the people and refrains from corruption or other dirty activities.

Even if they are factually or scientifically wrong, their motives may still be honorable. I don't think they deserve to be abused or denigrated for that, which is the tactic used by the "debunkers." Their motivations are far more unclear, since they seem more inclined to engage in character assassination than discussing facts.

 

[Revoltingest]

Even if they are factually or scientifically wrong, their motives may still be honorable. I don't think they deserve to be abused or denigrated for that, which is the tactic used by the "debunkers." Their motivations are far more unclear, since they seem more inclined to engage in character assassination than discussing facts.

Another way to see it is that the conspiracy theorists are demonizing others (instead of facing
reality). This raises a question...what is their motive for creating an enemy, & for hating?

 

[Woberts]

Well, I asked this question 3 hours ago, and no one has provided a single example yet.

I wonder if it took the people answering the poll question this long to decide whether or not the "Deep State" exists?

I haven't answered because I don't believe a "Deep State" exists. The entire idea is just asinine.

 

[YmirGF]

This is the question that the poll asked, and the responses:

The term Deep State refers to the possible existence of a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy. Do you think this type of Deep State in the federal government definitely exists, probably exists, probably does not exist, or definitely does not exist?

March 2018

Definitely exists 27%

Probably exists 47%

Probably does not exist 16%

Definitely does not exist 5%

(VOL) Don’t know 5%​

For everyone here who would answer "definitely exists" or "probably exists," I ask you to give an example or examples of "national policy" that you believe "unelected government and military officials . . . secretly manipulate".

Hell, I go with the (VOL) Don’t know 5% on this one. I'm not keen on conspiracy theory.

 

[Shaul]

If you were to read my post, you would see that I didn't ask for "evidence of things being done in secret"; I asked for "examples of 'national policy' that you believe 'unelected government and military officials . . . secretly manipulate'"

My thought was that there would be a number of examples of such, or of something close to qualifying as such, that we all agree to. The decisions of federal courts obviously can be seen as "manipulat[ing] . . . national policy," though it isn't done in secret. Federal agencies operate according to lots of rules and regulations, the construction of which is not necessarily very transparent or by people we can identify. As another sort of example, at the moment I'm not quite sure what statements under other Andrew McCabe lacked candor about, for which he was quickly fired just hours before he was retire, moreover, fired upon the recommendation of the AG who has definitely lacked candor under oath about his meetings with Russians during Trump's campaign.

Um, “secretly manipulate” would be something done in secret.
So you want people to post examples like some sort of debate piñata since they don’t know what criteria you would use. Why don’t you describe the sort of evidence you would find acceptable so people could then know how to reply to your request?

 

[Shaul]

Proof propaganda works. Repeat "deep state" multiple times a day, 365 days a year and people will come to believe it. And most likely vote on it.

The only 'deep state' I'm familiar with is the republican corporate establishment. You know, the same people the cultservatives hate in their own party. These people are so dumb they don't realize if you want to drain the swamp, you have to stop electing swampsters.

So you think the majority of those polled, from both political parties, are the dupes of propaganda?

 

[Shaul]

I haven't answered because I don't believe a "Deep State" exists. The entire idea is just asinine.

So you are in the minority.

 

[Shaul]

Well, I asked this question 3 hours ago, and no one has provided a single example yet.

I wonder if it took the people answering the poll question this long to decide whether or not the "Deep State" exists?

Describe what you would accept as evidence.

 

[Shaul]

What does this have to do with anything of consequence?

Go start a poll and ask people if they believe in God. Go ask in universities and then go ask in churches. Tell me what you find...

And then what do those results suggest about God?

It's another Facebook scam to influence doubt and belief.

So assuming this poll reflects how the majority believes there is a deep state you think that would be of no consequence. Ok.

 

[Shaul]

The definition of deep state from right wing media are people saying things against the president. Its ironic that they would call people deep state actors for leaking information about Trump praising Russia as they protect a President praising dictator type policies and sympathizing with Russia and China ideologies. I also heard Ryan and McConnell joined the deep state for disagreeing with Trump. Then there are tweets from Trump himself shifting blame of Russian collusion to Obama and Hillary as deep state actors. Trump literally feeds the deep state conspiracy theories and encourages it while simultaneously trying to stop and delegitimize any sort of investigation into the matter.

How, pray tell, do you know how all the “right wing media”(whoever they are) define the deep state? Right wing media are certainly no monolith. There are many conservatives that don’t support Trump at all but agree there is deep state. Or do you believe there is a “vast right wing conspiracy”?

 

[tytlyf]

So you think the majority of those polled, from both political parties, are the dupes of propaganda?

Correct, but don't say both sides. You don't hear democrats going on about the 'deep state.' Fox and Rush like to refer to the 'deep state' as democrats. While completely ignoring the RINO's or whatever they call republicans in their party. The deep state work in the republican party if it existed. Corporate overlords putting corporate policies over the middle class.

 

[Shaul]

Just to help this discussion, the Cambridge University dictionary defines the term “deep state” as; “organizations such as military, police, or political groups that are said to work secretly in order to protect particular interests and to rule a country without being elected”

 

[Shaul]

Correct, but don't say both sides. You don't hear democrats going on about the 'deep state.' Fox and Rush like to refer to the 'deep state' as democrats. While completely ignoring the RINO's or whatever they call republicans in their party. The deep state work in the republican party if it existed. Corporate overlords putting corporate policies over the middle class.

It is not me that says both sides. The poll results show that the majority of Democrats also believe there is a deep state. Whether they refer to it as often is not relevant, especially if have a compelling reason to not talk about it.

So you think some cabal of “corporate overlords” rules the country. Are they Freemasons or part of the “world wide Jewish conspiracy” by any chance? The Proletariat needs to rise up, right comrade?