>>>>Is such a train of thought to hard for current US admin, large % of potential voters or both ?
>>
>>My view: voters, given the option between complex considerations and simple binary party support, often will choose the easy option. Then they create pseudoscience to justify their choice and defend their position with the usual desperation of the uncertain. I think this is seen wherever binary party systems exist. It's a little different in proportional representation where party compromise may be needed to form a government, or where list members who never would be selected by voters can enter government by securing a favored rung on the party list. On and on it goes, but IMHO the main feature is the complexity created by a huge surfeit of information and fake news.
>
>
>Since reading van Vogts Null-A as a teen I consciously strive to elevate Aristotelean "Logic" (binary scale niveau) to ordinal at least, rational where possible. interval if necessary. As a kid I was suspicious of often-too-easy binary choices, learning later about consequences of scale type when calculating probabilities or significance levels made me wonder why that topic was never touched in Null-A ;-))

...and often wandering whether the line is an appropriate model, regardless of its numeric density. Perhaps additional dimensions may be required. Instead of black-white, not only the full grayscale, not only color, but stereometric view, perhaps also temperature, distribution of mass, magnetic fields and whatnot.

They generally didn't lie too much, they rather used the truth (at least, for a successful lie one needs at least 90% of true and verifiable facts) with just the important bits twisted, and anything that may distract the listener from coming to the desired conclusion conveniently omitted from the picture.

I hope the propagandists believe in hell, where they'll spend eternity hanged by the balls.