Examples: Trump (Georgia election, Sexual Assault, Tax Fraud, Real Estate Fraud), Putin (killing those who opposed his views).

It can be very difficult for a fact to change someone's mind, and this is largely caused by cognitive dissonance. When an individual has believed something to be true their whole lives, it is improbable that they will do a full 360 and change their mind to a completely opposite belief. They could believe in something because it benefits them: for example, someone who has invested in a business believes that it will profit them, with no actual fact that the business will succeed. Additionally, the lack of numerous different beliefs when growing up can lead people to solely accept the views they are surrounded by. For example, a child growing up in a family that has strong Republican values and supports Trump as a president would have a hard time accepting that he is not president or that the accusations against him might be true.

If voters don't have sufficient knowledge of an issue, their opinion can be more easily swayed and they may be more open to misinformation. Also, political leaders' opinions or policies may be based on the lack of certain knowledge, so they want voters not to have that knowledge. For example, people who aren't educated on climate change or don't believe in it are more likely to vote for anti-climate policies, which is why it may be helpful for leaders wanting to pass these policies to control the narrative about climate change so people don't see it as a problem.

Others examples of this include conspiracy theories. Politicians such as Trump may use the theory that the election was rigged to create a certain narrative, and that idea can be used to get people on his side and make them want to reelect him as 'redemption,' even if they don't have the correct information.

For example, in Los Alamos there are many museums on the Manhattan Project because it was a big part of history. These museums can inform are use of nuclear weapons now by showing the destruction they cause and past debates about them.

Museums showcase culture, a groups shared beliefs and practices. Our culture influences our politics because our beliefs govern how we view the government.

This question assumes that everyone given access uses that to find the facts, when it seems like most people just selectively seek out certain facts, even if they have the opportunity to find the whole picture. There is disagreement, because while everyone has access to the same facts, people choose which ones to listen to and therefore disagree. It is also possible everyone has the same information, but has different opinions on whether it's a problem or how to solve it.

The criteria to judge actions differs based on the person and the situation. Depending on who has power, the conclusion of whether the action is condemned or accepted changes. Rosa Parks demonstrates this, her "civil disobedience" on a bus in Alabama was at the time condemned and regarded as out of the ordinary. However, her arrest launched the Montgomery bus boycott and was widely seen as an encouraging moment for Civil Rights. Now, society views the event as definitely justifiable civil disobedience - so time and perspective can influence whether an action is accepted or condemned. Additionally, laws and policies govern what is deemed soically exceptable. The moral and legal criteria we hold makes it so that civil disobedience that harms others, such as terrorism, is not justifiable. Criterion is a principle by which something is judged, and our principles as human beings means we know that this type of civil disobedience is unethical.

We believed this was difficult question because it takes into account the psychology of political decisions. We must be wary of our emotional state when making important decisions such as voting. In certain circumstances, strong emotion can override the factual information that causes us to vote a certain way. For example, if a politician was responsible for an event that someone disagrees with (such as Biden and the Willow project), people can vote with only the bed event in mind. Other personal events such as losing a loved one or other home life circumstances could theoretically cause someone to not prioritize actions that would affect others, and instead worry about their own lives. Though nether are necessarily a fault of the person in question, we must learn to approach political decisions with disinterest and in a way that is unbiased.

Typically, a person would usually decide based on their political identity, because political identity and strong beliefs associated with their respective side can in a lot of cases overpower explanations from the other side. However, there are exceptions but it's mainly personal beliefs and experiences that overpower competing explanations and ideologies. Some people are neutral, however, and can take stances on politics that are unique. Luke's dad for example, who is neutral, bases his stances off of which argument makes the most sense and has the better reason. With that comes a somewhat neutral position for him to criticize certain fallacies or flaws in arguments on either side of the political spectrum. However, this doesn't necessarily mean there is an easy "right in the middle" stance for certain policies. For example, abortion, a relevant and current dilemma, is a hard political stance to be right in the middle of, and in lots of other cases, it's a choice between 2 things that can't exactly be mixed, like deciding between red or blue as a color. And as we read previously, most policies are made political, and sometimes aren't naturally political, and that is what shapes the one or the other standpoint. With abortion, there's not exactly a middle, with either allowing it or not allowing it. There could be an argument saying abortion should only be allowed in certain cases, but that rises problems in it's own, with potential cases where someone could lie, which then could spark a need for evidence, and it goes on. But there are some policies, such as immigration that do have more of a middle, because even though the 2 sides on the immigration dilemma are allowing it and not allowing it, the factor of illegal immigration could come into play where tightening security on illegal immigrants could be something to consider, but at the same time, making legal immigration easier. Of course, there are already problems within that, but that is one example of where policy can have more of a neutral position.

Social media is very effective at spreading political knowledge if and only if you follow politics and the algorithm decides to share that content with you. Even if you do follow the political sphere, the algorithm will only share with you the perspective you match well with, instead of giving you all perspectives. This creates a very black and white political spectrum. For example, I tend to be more liberal in general and youtube will only show me liberal perspectives, whereas my boyfriend is a bit more right leaning so he sees videos and posts about issues from a right wing perspective. As another example, places like North Korea, where the internet is monitored and controlled by the government only show the perspective of the people in power, which leads to the acquisition of only one perspective.

This was a difficult question for me to answer because it involves not only political beliefs but also morality. Morality is subjective, so no one is going to agree with everyone around them about what is justifiable civil disobedience. For example, January 6th was considered a war on democracy by the major public. In my opinion, while the people who participated wanted to see things go their way, they chose violence and used tactics like fear, hostages, and threats to get what they want, which is never what democracy was meant for. The majority of the public, including many right wing people saw this event as unacceptable civil disobedience. However, if you look at the protests talking about Israel and Palestine right now, they never start out violent and the majority of people do not encourage the violence that sometimes takes place. This is considered acceptable civil disobedience because of the fact that it is never meant to be violent or hurt people, it is simply a powerful way to express one's beliefs