Trump

Hank001 · Post by **Hank001** » Fri, 14. Sep 18, 22:03

RegisterMe:

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

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.

BugMeister · Post by **BugMeister** » Fri, 14. Sep 18, 22:56

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..

Observe · Post by **Observe** » Fri, 14. Sep 18, 23:06

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.

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

BugMeister · Post by **BugMeister** » Fri, 14. Sep 18, 23:13

read it here - I haven't time to write it all out..
http://www.nationalmemo.com/stolen-memo ... peachment/

RegisterMe · Post by **RegisterMe** » Fri, 14. Sep 18, 23:18

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.

BugMeister · Post by **BugMeister** » Fri, 14. Sep 18, 23:22

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

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

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

RegisterMe · Post by **RegisterMe** » Fri, 14. Sep 18, 23:29

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

Observe · Post by **Observe** » Fri, 14. Sep 18, 23:39

BugMeister wrote:read it here - I haven't time to write it all out..
http://www.nationalmemo.com/stolen-memo ... peachment/

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.

Post by **Ketraar** » Sat, 15. Sep 18, 00:19

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..

MFG

Ketraar

RegisterMe · Post by **RegisterMe** » Sat, 15. Sep 18, 01:04

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.

Mightysword · Post by **Mightysword** » Sat, 15. Sep 18, 01:31

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

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/13/64737791 ... -democrats

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/09/13/poli ... 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.

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

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.

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.

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 )

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.

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.

RegisterMe · Post by **RegisterMe** » Sat, 15. Sep 18, 01:37

@Mightysword - great post.

Observe · Post by **Observe** » Sat, 15. Sep 18, 02:12

RegisterMe wrote:@Mightysword - great post.

Let me be the first to second.

RegisterMe · Post by **RegisterMe** » Sat, 15. Sep 18, 03:14

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

BugMeister · Post by **BugMeister** » Sat, 15. Sep 18, 03:53

so, as it appears I am no longer welcome here
I shall take my leave

goodbye..

RegisterMe · Post by **RegisterMe** » Sat, 15. Sep 18, 04:05

BugMeister wrote:so, as it appears I am no longer welcome here
I shall take my leave

goodbye..

Not at all. And please don't go.

Observe · Post by **Observe** » Sat, 15. Sep 18, 04:07

BugMeister wrote:so, as it appears I am no longer welcome here
I shall take my leave goodbye..

Don't leave on my account BugMeister. I love your point of view. I only encourage you to expound your own thinking; as much as the links to others that you favor. I find no objection to your presence here. Quite the contrary. Please forgive me if I have offended or hurt in any way.

Hank001 · Post by **Hank001** » Sat, 15. Sep 18, 04:12

@ BugMeister
Mind if I join you?
When Breitbart starts being considered journalism it's time to opt out.
Next they'll comparing their tinfoil hats...

Oh well...was fun whoile it lasted, but I suppose we should have just admitted Puntin won the US election in November 2016 and moved on. Though I imagine things like truth have became either relivant or irrelivant and Trump has became more well liked because with all the checks on the markets removed it's all about the economy... Until the bottom drops out and then? Too late to matter. Of course it might just be that the US has devolved into such a slime ridden hell hole that Trump might just be your average Joe. Or the Earth fell through some kind of rift into the nth dimension where Alternate Facts are truth, where wrong is right and where the US President creates reality on twitter. So hey Argon. The Khaak won.

Masterbagger · Post by **Masterbagger** » Sat, 15. Sep 18, 05:42

BugMeister wrote:so, as it appears I am no longer welcome here
I shall take my leave

goodbye..

Nothing is over until we decide it is. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell No!

RegisterMe · Post by **RegisterMe** » Sat, 15. Sep 18, 05:49

Masterbagger wrote:Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell No!

Perhaps I am missing as new found USA facility for irony... well I hope so.

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

Trump