Trump

[darkwolf666]

If you had any evidence you'd present the links to it, rather than pretend I'm a fool because I can't find it.

Present your evidence - it will clearly take you far less than five minutes for you to find it and post it. Then I promise to properly evaluate it.

And remember, I am looking for evidence that President Biden is as bad as President Trump, not evidence that his son may be a prat.

This is Covidiots all over again, isn't it, with their "do your research man", and "don't trust MSM" - as that bloke on YouTube, Twitter or even NSC is so much more reliable for intelligence gained information!

 

[jcdenton08]

If there was indications that Trump jr was involved in some corruption scandal, you'd be all over it and link it to his dad.

I think people's ambition to portray all Democractic politicians and their surroundings as some kind of innocent saints because Trump is a ****tard is entirely human (people don't want to feel that their Jedi heroes are almost as shady as their enemies in the Empire) but that is, if you look at it soberly, pretty damn far from the truth. Both parties are frightening levels of corrupt and leave very little room for any kind of democratic process, not least proven by the advantages given to Biden and Clinton over Sanders in the presidential candidate nominations.

Do they have irony in Sweden?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This is Covidiots all over again, isn't it, with their "do your research man", and "don't trust MSM" - as that bloke on YouTube, Twitter or even NSC is so much more reliable for intelligence gained information!

Yep. I have had a couple of people sneering at me for not having access to their secret but 'easily found' information, recently.

I gather it's all written in the Da Vinci code

 

[Igzilla]

Yep. I have had a couple of people sneering at me for not having access to their secret but 'easily found' information, recently.

I gather it's all written in the Da Vinci code

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Do_your_own_research

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Do_your_own_research

I had a jolly chuckle, reading that

As a scientist, I have struggled with the tricky business of determining what is a theorem (fact), what is theory, what is a working hypothesis, and what is shooting a gun into the sky and hoping a bird may fall to the ground (well, it's become rather easy to spot the latter, to be fair).

The process of examining ideas is very tricky. I am well aware of confirmation bias, and my research has almost completely reduced now to the elaboration of methods of blinding and randomization (off to teach yet another group of doe-eyed students on this tomorrow). My own lab research has reduced to the construction and testing of extremely simple ideas, where the scope for making the wrong inference is attacked by my attempts to falsify hypotheses.

Meanwhile in the cowboy western world of global political analysis.....I can only assume that the majority of folk are so safe and secure that there is no element of threat to make them question whether musing on conspiracy, and voting for charlatans, may not be in their interest. They can then suck up all the claptrap without any sense of jeopardy, rather like they are reading an exciting fantasy novel. Ironically this lunatic complacency may be increasing the risk of the real jeopardy that would necessitate a head wobble. Let's see whether Putin creates such jeopardy.

I sincerely hope he doesn't, of course. I can live with conspiracy nuts more easily than I can live with tanks on my lawn.

 

[Igzilla]

I had a jolly chuckle, reading that

As a scientist, I have struggled with the tricky business of determining what is a theorem (fact), what is theory, what is a working hypothesis, and what is shooting a gun into the sky and hoping a bird may fall to the ground (well, it's become rather easy to spot the latter, to be fair).

The process of examining ideas is very tricky. I am well aware of confirmation bias, and my research has almost completely reduced now to the elaboration of methods of blinding and randomization (off to teach yet another group of doe-eyed students on this tomorrow). My own lab research has reduced to the construction and testing of extremely simple ideas, where the scope for making the wrong inference is attacked by my attempts to falsify hypotheses.

Meanwhile in the cowboy western world of global political analysis.....I can only assume that the majority of folk are so safe and secure that there is no element of threat to make them question whether musing on conspiracy, and voting for charlatans, may not be in their interest. They can then suck up all the claptrap without any sense of jeopardy, rather like they are reading an exciting fantasy novel. Ironically this lunatic complacency may be increasing the risk of the real jeopardy that would necessitate a head wobble. Let's see whether Putin creates such jeopardy.

I sincerely hope he doesn't, of course. I can live with conspiracy nuts more easily than I can live with tanks on my lawn.

Glad you enjoyed it - that site can end up being a bit of a rabbit hole.

What frustrates me as a failed scientist (got my Masters but not good enough and didn't want to do a PhD) is when non-scientists sneer and say, "Well, it's only a theory...", as if that invalidates whatever it may be, (Earth as sphere, Gravity et al.), or say "Well. that's a LAW..." as if it validates their psychobabble and trumps hundreds of years of scientific research.

 

[Swansman]

If you had any evidence you'd present the links to it, rather than pretend I'm a fool because I can't find it.

Present your evidence - it will clearly take you far less than five minutes for you to find it and post it. Then I promise to properly evaluate it.

And remember, I am looking for evidence that President Biden is as bad as President Trump, not evidence that his son may be a prat.

Good/bad is always subjective so there won't be any "evidence" of that sort.

But perhaps, if you have a different opinion on that, you could begin with providing the evidence (not your personal opinion) that Trump is worse than Biden before asking others to prove their stance?

 

[Greg Bobkin]

*grabs popcorn*

 

[Icy Gull]

*grabs popcorn*

and chair surely?

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Good/bad is always subjective so there won't be any "evidence" of that sort.

But perhaps, if you have a different opinion on that, you could begin with providing the evidence (not your personal opinion) that Trump is worse than Biden before asking others to prove their stance?

Sorry but this is about Trump ( hence the title) not Biden so the onus is on you to prove that Biden is worse than Trump.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Badger Boy]

There is no argument to be made that president Biden is worse, by any metric at all. He is a return to actual leadership and an administration which is getting things done. He isn't a reality TV star, he's a president. His administration is competently writing and passing bills into law, rather than needing to do everything by executive action due to sheer incompetence. They have already passed more impactful reforms than anything Trump's administration managed and for all the "infrastructure weeks" under Trump, Biden's build back better is actually happening. I think the Americans who aren't on the fringes can see the difference and can see that Biden's administration are actually capable of fulfilling their promises. Hopefully they'll strengthen their overall majorities in the House and the Senate and then get to work writing laws to protect women's rights, among other things.

 

[Swansman]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Do_your_own_research

The "do your own research, from my list of self-approved sources" argument really goes both ways.

If I claim that Wall Street-businessmen funded both the Second World War and the Russian revolution and refer to a certain book, there is a very high likelyhood that it will either be ignored or someone will claim that eg George Seldes once farted in the wrong direction and therefore can not be trusted which - apparently - invalidates all the evidence he brought forward on any subject, ever. This happens all the time. Because George Seldes is not an authority in their eyes.

To take examples people are more aware of:
If Alex Jones writes that Bill Clinton is from Mars, mainstreamers (and every other sensible human, but lets skip that for now) are going to think: who is sending me this message - are there other parties other than himself involved? what interest does he have in sending this message? What would he gain from persuading me to believe that Bill Clinton is from Mars? It will be fairly easy to conclude that his main purpose is to sell weird pills and lousy books to nutjobs.

This is the right way of doing it. All these questions should be asked.

But people tend to avoid asking these questions when it comes to someone they see as an authority, whereas I and other "conspiracy theorists" of the sensible kind apply to the same thing to mainstream media: who are sending me this message - are there other parties other than the reporter/CNN? what interest do they have in sending this message? What would they gain from persuading me to believe that the socialist is evil and the free-market neo-liberal is good?

The answers to that would be:
who are sending me this message - are there other parties involved other than the CNN? CNN is a company which is a company owned by Warner Bros. Discovery, which is a company owned by Vanguard Group, BlackRock, SSGA and a variety of other American investment companies. We can go deeper, but for simplicity lets go with that.
what interest do they have in sending this message? The socialist who wants to increase economic equality and nationalize currently private markets may not be the best candidate to provide a good climate for these gigantic investment companies... so quite simply: their interest is that the socialist does not get elected.
What would they gain from persuading me to believe that the socialist is evil and the free-market neo-liberal is good? My approval/acceptance of their candidate, his beliefs, and therefore a vote for the candidate who would act in the best interests of the corporations sending this message.

Equally untrustworthy. Yet, just like Seldes is on my list of approved sources, these media corporations may be on the list of most mainstreamers approved soruces.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Glad you enjoyed it - that site can end up being a bit of a rabbit hole.

What frustrates me as a failed scientist (got my Masters but not good enough and didn't want to do a PhD) is when non-scientists sneer and say, "Well, it's only a theory...", as if that invalidates whatever it may be, (Earth as sphere, Gravity et al.), or say "Well. that's a LAW..." as if it validates their psychobabble and trumps hundreds of years of scientific research.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Good/bad is always subjective so there won't be any "evidence" of that sort.

But perhaps, if you have a different opinion on that, you could begin with providing the evidence (not your personal opinion) that Trump is worse than Biden before asking others to prove their stance?

Oh, for goodness' sake.

I'm not the one making ridiculous assertions.

Now prove that I'm wrong.

 

[Swansman]

Oh, for goodness' sake.

I'm not the one making ridiculous assertions.

Now prove that I'm wrong.

You want me to "do my own research" that these are ridiculous assertions or are you going to provide evidence for it?

I mean, you frequently want people to provide evidence for this and that and now you refuse to do the same?

I'm (not) shocked.

 

[BBassic]

The Swanny / HWT Big Brother series is getting better every day!

Just need to find Davina...

EDIT: Should also add, I mean no disrespect to either of you.

 

[herecomesaregular]

The "do your own research, from my list of self-approved sources" argument really goes both ways.

If I claim that Wall Street-businessmen funded both the Second World War and the Russian revolution and refer to a certain book, there is a very high likelyhood that it will either be ignored or someone will claim that eg George Seldes once farted in the wrong direction and therefore can not be trusted which - apparently - invalidates all the evidence he brought forward on any subject, ever. This happens all the time. Because George Seldes is not an authority in their eyes.

To take examples people are more aware of:
If Alex Jones writes that Bill Clinton is from Mars, mainstreamers (and every other sensible human, but lets skip that for now) are going to think: who is sending me this message - are there other parties other than himself involved? what interest does he have in sending this message? What would he gain from persuading me to believe that Bill Clinton is from Mars? It will be fairly easy to conclude that his main purpose is to sell weird pills and lousy books to nutjobs.

This is the right way of doing it. All these questions should be asked.

But people tend to avoid asking these questions when it comes to someone they see as an authority, whereas I and other "conspiracy theorists" of the sensible kind apply to the same thing to mainstream media: who are sending me this message - are there other parties other than the reporter/CNN? what interest do they have in sending this message? What would they gain from persuading me to believe that the socialist is evil and the free-market neo-liberal is good?

The answers to that would be:
who are sending me this message - are there other parties involved other than the CNN? CNN is a company which is a company owned by Warner Bros. Discovery, which is a company owned by Vanguard Group, BlackRock, SSGA and a variety of other American investment companies. We can go deeper, but for simplicity lets go with that.
what interest do they have in sending this message? The socialist who wants to increase economic equality and nationalize currently private markets may not be the best candidate to provide a good climate for these gigantic investment companies... so quite simply: their interest is that the socialist does not get elected.
What would they gain from persuading me to believe that the socialist is evil and the free-market neo-liberal is good? My approval/acceptance of their candidate, his beliefs, and therefore a vote for the candidate who would act in the best interests of the corporations sending this message.

Equally untrustworthy. Yet, just like Seldes is on my list of approved sources, these media corporations may be on the list of most mainstreamers approved soruces.

Bloody hell, are there any Americans who are actual socialists? That would be a shock. Seems to be just two awful political parties both on the right wing, one in office with a really poor president, and one who's ex president is an absolute deranged loon?

 

[Swansman]

Bloody hell, are there any Americans who are actual socialists? That would be a shock. Seems to be just two awful political parties both on the right wing, one in office with a really poor president, and one who is an absolute deranged loon?

Bernie Sanders was actually close to that definition. Needless to say his thoughts and ideas were given very little media time and a lot of resistance within the Democratic Party.
You're not going to become the president of the US as a socialist - in fact, you're not even going to get a fair chance.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You want me to "do my own research" that these are ridiculous assertions or are you going to provide evidence for it?

I mean, you frequently want people to provide evidence for this and that and now you refuse to do the same?

I'm (not) shocked.

You're asking me to provide evidence for my assertion that you haven't provided any evidence for your ridiculous assertions?

Easy.

You haven't provided any evidence

 

[Crawley Dingo]

Bernie Sanders was actually close to that definition. Needless to say his thoughts and ideas were given very little media time and a lot of resistance within the Democratic Party.

You forgot to mention the primary was staight up rigged against Bernie by Hillary n co.