Feelings vs Fact - Newt Gingrich - RNC Topic on Violent Crime - Feelings trump FBI Stats!

Here's a relevant opinion from Newt Gingrich on the matter of perception of violence vs. actual trends [VIDEO]

I didn't say DEI for a reason, here is the other side talking rather overtly: [VIDEO] ... Pick a topic and someone is gonna have a really bent take on how things would be... and keen on jamming that take down someone else's throat so they can feel better. Everyone has shitty takes that they want others to buy into... everyone. Is Taiwan a country? I would say yes, most Americans would (I hope). Ask ChatGPT... 4chan is still a thing, the library is still a thing. The nuclear boy scouts made a giant mess before there was an internet. As for safety, well, it's gonna be a long time before shutting down the world isnt a weekend project for a hand full of people if they are allowed.

According to Newt, voters don't want the truth in politics, especially because it's awkward. Voters want politicians to side with them on the basis of their feelings. [VIDEO]

Too many politicians and voters are in the habit of ignoring facts and instead going with their gut feelings, even when the facts directly contradict their "feelings". And unfortunately fear mongering for votes can be very effective. Here's Newt Gingrich's classic "debate" between FBI crime statistics and his own "feelings". Notice particularly the language he uses to frame actual facts that don't agree with his ideology: [VIDEO]

> Another is a worldview that values selflessness, altruism, and honesty. I don't think those things can exist apart from religion Religion doesn't have a monopoly on those ideals. They are not even solely human ideals. Many mammals display them in certain scenarios. > (at a cultural level, anyway). Many of the least religious countries are the best places to live, and the most religious, the worst. I went to Norway (the least religious country in western Europe), and they often don't check tickets on the train or at the entrances of places. When you ask someone why not, because people could lie, you get an answer like.. "because one wouldn't do that" (ie cheat the system). I got so used to it that I would lose my train tickets in my bag because I didn't need them. The only place I needed them was getting off the train at the airport because there was a machine that checked it. > because as soon as you decide morality is relative then everyone is free to choose the morality that is most convenient for them/their tribe. Religions do this. There are many sects with different rules. People pick and choose what rules to obey all the time. Not being religious doesn't make one a moral relativist. Ethics and morality can be reasoned about. > I think this explains much of our political divide and the "post-Truth" era generally The post-truth era in the West is clearly a product of the religious right: [VIDEO]

Newt Gingrich dropped the famous "feels over reals" line on CNN. "You have your facts on the left and we have our facts on the right" is basically what he said. Along with "If people feel one way then that's real." He isn't wrong, but he openly admitted to manipulating people to get them to feel certain ways. [VIDEO]

> Now, why are you spending misinformation? Are you going to claim that US politicians don't do the exact same thing? This is my favorite example of it, where one literally tells you what the play is while it's getting made: [VIDEO] Feelings not facts.

I'm reminded of that [terrifying in hind-sight] Newt Gingrich interview in which he was more concerned about his constituents feelings about things getting worse than any silly statistics provided by government agencies. [VIDEO]