EnglishGermanFrenchRussianItalianSpanish
Log inRegister
 
Trump
Post new topic Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 496, 497, 498, 499, 500  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
RegisterMe



MEDAL

Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 714 on topic
Location: London, UK
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 14. Sep 18, 21:38    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

Hank001 wrote:
Sarah Sanders sent tweet out though White House press office to get ahead of the story since DJT is busy today. Expect weekend tweet storm this weekend as per S.O.P.

In the meantime that "dirt" the Dems had on Kavenaugh that they forwarded to the FBI? It deals with what he did in HIGH SCHOOL!
(Huge eye roll Rolling Eyes )

Two points of view:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-sexual-misconduct-allegation-against-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-stirs-tension-among-democrats-in-congress

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/14/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-categorically-denies-claim-about-alleged-behavior-in-high-school.amp.html#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s


Just as we, in this thread, need to keep our powder dry (on both sides I hasten to add), so do elected officials. Make too big a deal of something meaningless and you can seriously undermine your argument....

EDIT: For the avoidance of doubt that wasn't meant to be interpreted as being critical of Hank001 or his post Smile.


_________________
Gavrushka wrote:
The problem with 'freedom of speech' is it makes wackos think they have something of value to say.

*WE WANT THE amtct BACK*


Rapier's search
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hank001





Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 104 on topic
Location: Carbondale, IL
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 14. Sep 18, 22:03    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

RegisterMe:
Quote:
EDIT: For the avoidance of doubt that wasn't meant to be interpreted as being critical of Hank001 or his post Smile


NOo problem there. I think we're on the same wavelength. A shame to doesn't seem to be within the pol's frequency range. Very Happy


_________________
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
BugMeister



MEDAL

Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3717 on topic
Location: elsewhere..
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 14. Sep 18, 22:56    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

Observe wrote:
BugMeister wrote:
- Kavanaugh is TOTALLY unsuitable to sit on the Supreme Court..

Since I don't watch YouTube, I wonder if you could explain why Kavanaugh is unsuitable? From what I've read (admittedly not much), his peers both liberal and conservative, consider him a good choice for a conservative on the bench.


- why do you avoid YouTube?
- do you have difficulty discerning the truth?

- the Kavanaugh case doesn't hinge on some high-school incident
- it involves the theft of documents and the subsequent denial..

- watch the Randi Rhodes link I posted..


_________________
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! Very Happy Thumb up
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Observe





Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 2585 on topic
Location: Oregon, USA
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 14. Sep 18, 23:06    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

BugMeister wrote:
Why do you avoid YouTube? Do you have difficulty discerning the truth?

Believe me, if you had my crappy internet, you wouldn't watch online videos either. As for difficulty discerning the truth, you've got me there. No matter, I have plenty of company on that count; to the tune of around 7.6 billion or so people. Smile

So no, I won't watch the Randi Rhodes (whoever he is) video. I'd rather hear it in your own words please.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BugMeister



MEDAL

Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3717 on topic
Location: elsewhere..
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 14. Sep 18, 23:13    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

read it here - I haven't time to write it all out..
http://www.nationalmemo.com/stolen-memos-case-prompts-call-for-kavanaughs-impeachment/


_________________
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! Very Happy Thumb up
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RegisterMe



MEDAL

Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 714 on topic
Location: London, UK
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 14. Sep 18, 23:18    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

I had no idea who Randi Rhodes was either (it's a woman by the way). I watched a few minutes of the link that Bug posted but tired of it pretty quickly - poorly constructed, no editing, rambling and unclear.

Which is not to say that she was right or wrong about anything, just that what she had to say wasn't presented professionally. The same, of course, happens on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, YTT etc, but less.... obviously.


_________________
Gavrushka wrote:
The problem with 'freedom of speech' is it makes wackos think they have something of value to say.

*WE WANT THE amtct BACK*


Rapier's search
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BugMeister



MEDAL

Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3717 on topic
Location: elsewhere..
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 14. Sep 18, 23:22    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

- that style of presentation doesn't render it untrue, though - does it? Confused

Randi Rhodes is honest..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randi_Rhodes

- she's an award-winning reporter
- well established and respected..


_________________
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! Very Happy Thumb up
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RegisterMe



MEDAL

Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 714 on topic
Location: London, UK
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 14. Sep 18, 23:29    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

Render it untrue? No. Render it ignorable? For me, yes.


_________________
Gavrushka wrote:
The problem with 'freedom of speech' is it makes wackos think they have something of value to say.

*WE WANT THE amtct BACK*


Rapier's search
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Observe





Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 2585 on topic
Location: Oregon, USA
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 14. Sep 18, 23:39    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

BugMeister wrote:
read it here - I haven't time to write it all out..
http://www.nationalmemo.com/stolen-memos-case-prompts-call-for-kavanaughs-impeachment/

But you see, that's another point I've been trying to make. I come to this forum for discussion; not to read articles or follow someone else's links like a zombie. I am perfectly capable of reading articles on my own all day long.

If someone is too lazy to provide summary discussion beyond half a sentence, then I confess I am too lazy to follow their links. Does this mean I am blind to truth? No, it just means I am in possession of own head, complete with my own thought accessories.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ketraar
Moderator (DevNet)
Moderator (DevNet)

MEDALMEDAL

Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 8632 on topic
Location: Guimarães (Portugal)
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Sat, 15. Sep 18, 00:19    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

Observe wrote:
But you see, that's another point I've been trying to make. I come to this forum for discussion; not to read articles or follow someone else's links like a zombie. I am perfectly capable of reading articles on my own all day long.

Indeed. With exception to something truly exclusive or citations, I completely agree with you. Its like we are on twitter instead of a Forum. Bonkers I know.. Rolling Eyes

MFG

Ketraar

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
RegisterMe



MEDAL

Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 714 on topic
Location: London, UK
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Sat, 15. Sep 18, 01:04    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

Well, fwiw I like and value this thread. I see it as a concentration of thought, opinion, experience and insight. And that includes links. That's especially important, to me, when people are expressing opinions I disagree with, or posting links to material that I am sceptical about.

The cost to me of clicking on a zero / limited ad value link to a youtube / BBC / Reuters / whatever link? Approaching nothing.

The value to me of clicking on a link that I didn't know about, or presented me with a different line of thought (eg Skim's link to the Brietbart piece about Puerto Rico and hurricane Maria) is high.

Even when I disagree with them.


_________________
Gavrushka wrote:
The problem with 'freedom of speech' is it makes wackos think they have something of value to say.

*WE WANT THE amtct BACK*


Rapier's search
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mightysword





Joined: 10 Mar 2004
Posts: 2133 on topic

Thank you for registering your game
modified
PostPosted: Sat, 15. Sep 18, 01:31    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

Hank001 wrote:
Guess Trump just can't stop lying about anything that disagrees with his proir lies.

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/13/647377915/trump-denies-death-toll-in-puerto-rico-falsely-claims-done-by-the-democrats

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/09/13/politics/hurricane-maria-florence-puerto-rico/index.html




As a statistician by trade, I don't take stock in published studies like these. In fact, I don't take stock in most statistical study unless I see it's fully published in a journal detailing how the study was done. Give me ONE sample, and often time it's not THAT hard to construct two models to give almost 2 complete different narrative. Half of my job is to teach people the objectivity of statistical study, to realize bias, question sampling methods, accounting for association and causation ...etc... Do you start a research with a neutral objective of figure out something, or you start a research to 'prove' something? Because if it's the latter, you can almost guarantee to be able to do it, especially for these kind of public researches where people care more about narrative then scrutinizing the technical aspect of it.

Just like the previous White-House oped in (which btw, didn't seem to last even 2 weeks in this new cycle), the timing of this release seems a bit too convenience. Rolling Eyes

Skism wrote:

And here is my response

Fact Check: Trump is Right About Puerto Rico, Critics Manipulating Hurricane Maria Death ‘Estimates’

Again they are doing this in a cheap way to attack Trump but then thats the standard motto for leftists these days Wink Rolling Eyes Twisted Evil


Eh, I read it. It started out well enough but ... I think my braincells were screaming for Oxygen 1/3 way through, and I wonder if some of them died at the end. That's just about how bad it is written, and not to mention the obvious bias, even if you don't accoun for the statistic angle. Took a glance at the author and let's just say I wouldn't trust a product review written by this author, much less qualify this article as a fact checking piece. You know I often come after the people who I believe irrationally attack anything Trump related, but if they want to dismiss this "fact checking piece[/b]" as a rant written by a Trump supporter ... I certainly wouldn't get in their way. Wink

If anyone value objectivity and rationality, they shouldn't just blindly embrace anything simply because it's inline with their narrative. Question what you disagree is easy, question what you do agree is the hard part. Smile

Hank001 wrote:

In the meantime that "dirt" the Dems had on Kavenaugh that they forwarded to the FBI? It deals with what he did in HIGH SCHOOL!
(Huge eye roll Rolling Eyes )



well, the fact that you didn't immediately embrace this piece of news as the next anti-Trump cup of coffee, my respect for you just goes up a bit. Very Happy

It's worth it to note that even the Democrat senator who originally received the letter didn't want to go public with it. She specifically told other Democrats that the matter is too distant to warrant a public discussion and that they should focus the message on legal stuff rather than personal one. It's the other Democrats and media that pressured her into opening the matter up. So the good news it seems there are still some rational politicians out there. The bad news is per usual the wiser counsel is ignored in favor of the more sentimental one, rationality is certain in short supply, but for some reason it's not in high demand either. Sad



Last edited by Mightysword on Sat, 15. Sep 18, 01:38; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RegisterMe



MEDAL

Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 714 on topic
Location: London, UK
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Sat, 15. Sep 18, 01:37    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

@Mightysword - great post.


_________________
Gavrushka wrote:
The problem with 'freedom of speech' is it makes wackos think they have something of value to say.

*WE WANT THE amtct BACK*


Rapier's search
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Observe





Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 2585 on topic
Location: Oregon, USA
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Sat, 15. Sep 18, 02:12    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

RegisterMe wrote:
@Mightysword - great post.

Let me be the first to second. Smile

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RegisterMe



MEDAL

Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 714 on topic
Location: London, UK
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Sat, 15. Sep 18, 03:14    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

but I'd also like to ask @Mightysword whether they've read the various works of Danny Kahneman and Amos Tversky?


_________________
Gavrushka wrote:
The problem with 'freedom of speech' is it makes wackos think they have something of value to say.

*WE WANT THE amtct BACK*


Rapier's search
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 496, 497, 498, 499, 500  Next
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
Control Panel
Login Data
The time now is Wed, 19. Sep 18, 00:54

All times are GMT + 2 Hours

[ Disclaimer / Impressum ] | [ Privacy Policy / Datenschutz ]

Board Security

Copyright © EGOSOFT 1989-2018
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Template created by Avatar & BurnIt!
Debug: page generation = 5.02172 seconds, sql queries = 29