<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Darin Sunley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dsunley@gmail.com" target="_blank">dsunley@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span style="color:rgb(29,33,41);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:16.08px">If the "serious" politicians, on both sides of the aisle, wanted us to be able to take seriously the idea that a presidential candidate like Trump could be an existential threat to the country, they probably shouldn't have spent the last three decades describing, in turn, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and Barack Obama as similar existential threats. </span><div><span style="color:rgb(29,33,41);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:16.08px"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(29,33,41);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:16.08px">"But this guy's /really, really/ bad!" just isn't terribly convincing, in and of itself. We've heard that story before.</span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>### But this kind of rhetoric plays into people's confirmation bias greatly. Sensational stories about the evil of the other guy may not find traction with the other guy's followers, but they sure make your own sheep scared of leaving.</div><div><br></div><div>Rafał</div></div>
</div></div>