ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Khoranth wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

My dude, the category of "things that are evil but most people don't think should be illegal" is basically things that aren't that evil, just kinda shitty. Like, say, cheating on your wife with a porn star, or billionaires who game the tax system with legal loopholes. You might want to go down that road, but I don't. I'm not going to live my life thinking loan salesmen are all evil people, even if I emphatically don't want any of what they're selling.

Khoranth in a nutshell:

I think anyone involved in tricking poor people into getting subprime loans is evil. Clinton, Democrats, bankers, real estate agents and all the Republicans who went along with it.

Pretty sure I've been clear in this thread that Ted Cruz is basically one of the only moral, honest, upstanding people in DC.

LOL Ted Cruz couldn't be liked handing out food at homeless shelter. Dude is seriously vapid and venal. Seriously surprised be beat Beto but it's Texas after all... Good state. anyone with a R behind name can win there. Ted Cruz is proof.

Massive genocide almost always has been proceeded by disarmament of the populace. Yet people beg for it. Quite confusing to me as someone who dislikes fascism and totalitarianism, but, hey, fascists would love nothing more than to have more gun control and if that's their opinion they are free to express it.

"

Manocean wrote:

Massive genocide almost always has been proceeded by disarmament of the populace. Yet people beg for it. Quite confusing to me as someone who dislikes fascism and totalitarianism, but, hey, fascists would love nothing more than to have more gun control and if that's their opinion they are free to express it.

Ice cream sales correlate highly with drowning deaths.

Therefore eating ice cream will make you drown.

By the way, the gun control thread is a bit below, though I guess you could tie it to Trump too somehow.

https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2091359

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-the-united-states-right-wing-violence-is-on-the-rise/2018/11/25/61f7f24a-deb4-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

My advice to any conservative in an environment of stifling political correctness is to stay in the closet — pretend to agree with the insipid progressivism, get your paper, and get out, without drawing a target on your back. In today's world it's rather simple to maintain an anonymous Internet presence so you can participate in politics as you desire without tying that persona to your brick-and-mortar life (and its corresponding non-anonymous accounts). I know it sucks living a double life like that but gay folks dealt with that way of life for years, and look at 'em now.

The last thing you want in a situation like that is to ruin your movement's chances at a more widespread acceptance (not saying conservativism is persecuted everywhere or even most places, merely some). One idiot terrorist sets everyone back. One of the murderers mentioned in that article famously said on Gab (a Twitter competitor) "screw your optics, I'm going in." Proof that this particular individual didn't give a fuck about the success of the right as a political movement and was acting entirely in his own deluded interests and vicious impatience.

"

rojimboo wrote:

In addition, my main point of my original post that tied it all in to this thread, was the mention of tariffs. I.e. what that orange buffoon is doing at the moment.

Since you have neglected to comment on that on multiple occasions, I can only assume you agree.

Good.

Wrong assumption on that issue. Tariffs imposed purely to generate a trade imbalance (protective)usually end up being a bad thing. Tariffs imposed to balance out a tariff or other illegal trade action by a competing nation (dumping steel for instance) can be beneficial, if handled carefully.

"

rojimboo wrote:

I already said that correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

1) correlation can imply causation, it just doesn't prove it. If the data is valid and has a relationship, the correlation can mean a good subject to explore for causation.



2) If you didn't mean to imply causuality, why post it at all?

It's like saying that since 1937, the month following US Presidential inauguration has the fewest days of any month in the year.

"

rojimboo wrote:

But what you did, was try to google dirt

I went to the link you provided in your source. I went to the link your source provided for their information.

Zero Googling. The "dirt" was information they provided themselves.

"

rojimboo wrote:

on the source, and try to discredit the facts because of the dubious credentials that he had.

and I suppose it's one way of debating, just a really poor way, which I don't like.

Yet, you seem to have no problem with using it (discrediting the source) when it comes to views opposing your own?

Exhibit A:

"

rojimboo wrote:

"1. Consensus - this in itself has been peer reviewed. In layman terms, there really aren't any scientific publications in recent years, that dispute the tenets of anthropogenic climate change due to increased greenhouse effect. That's what that means. As in, 0 peer reviewed papers in higher impact ranking journals, have managed to dispute it."

"

rojimboo wrote:

I know plenty of people without the PhD credentials you deem necessary in the right field, that can and will hold a very detailed debate/discussion about most subjects. Their general knowledge and current affairs knowledge is off the charts. These are people who learned very well, to learn, usually in some area of academia.

A degree isn't necessary. That wasn't my point. My point was that a degree in field A does not make a person an expert in field B.

The point about certain people having a broad base of knowledge on is true. I think that such people enjoy knowledge and information. Their academic experience may have sparked that interest, or given them better tools to pursue it. I would be that in most cases, such people had a thirst for knowledge long before school.

There's still a difference between discussing a topic and acting as an expert opinion though.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Again I refer to my very appropriate parable, regarding the homeless man claiming the sky is blue, and the guy not believing and trying to seek out a dual PhD graduate with degrees in optical spectroscopy and eye surgery.

It's simply not necessary, in the slightest.

Unless they are on Mars. From the skeptic viewpoint, the homeless man seeing a blue sky, and the PhD types are the ones telling him their consensus is that the sky is purple.

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-the-united-states-right-wing-violence-is-on-the-rise/2018/11/25/61f7f24a-deb4-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html

Hmm, that article in the Washington Post mentions the synagogue shooter, yet doesn't mention he was a Trump hater, even though they link to their own story on him, which doesn't mention him as a Trump hater

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM


https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/10/28/synagogue-shooter-hated-pro-israel-trump-so-media-tied-his-motive-to-migrant-caravan-687844

https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/robert-bowers-politics-trump-republican-democrat/

This is why the Washinton Compost and other intentionally dishonest media outlets are considered fake news.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

I already said that correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

1) correlation can imply causation, it just doesn't prove it. If the data is valid and has a relationship, the correlation can mean a good subject to explore for causation.

Spoiler

For example - an correlated increased number of snowmobiles sales in an area could cause a slighlt increased number of snow tire sales (as snowmobilers need to drive snow areas to use them. But the reverse correlation (snow tire sales causing increased snowmobile purchases wouldn't be causative, and more likely related to weather conditions.

2) If you didn't mean to imply causuality, why post it at all?

It's like saying that since 1937, the month following US Presidential inauguration has the fewest days of any month in the year.

He didn't say that. He said it did imply causation but that he didn't intend to defend it. IIRC.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

In addition, my main point of my original post that tied it all in to this thread, was the mention of tariffs. I.e. what that orange buffoon is doing at the moment.

Since you have neglected to comment on that on multiple occasions, I can only assume you agree.

Good.

Wrong assumption on that issue. Tariffs imposed purely to generate a trade imbalance (protective)usually end up being a bad thing. Tariffs imposed to balance out a tariff or other illegal trade action by a competing nation (dumping steel for instance) can be beneficial, if handled carefully.

I find it odd you can write a 2000 word essay on what a blogger stating a fact, had for breakfast and about his grades in high school, yet spend only a few words on the main point of Trump's tariffs and their effect.

This is what I like to call selective skepticism.

I guess we will never know if GOP economic policies are to be avoided at all costs, at the risk of a financial collapse.

Dems got House. And I don't mean house music.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-the-united-states-right-wing-violence-is-on-the-rise/2018/11/25/61f7f24a-deb4-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

My advice to any conservative in an environment of stifling political correctness is to stay in the closet — pretend to agree with the insipid progressivism, get your paper, and get out, without drawing a target on your back. In today's world it's rather simple to maintain an anonymous Internet presence so you can participate in politics as you desire without tying that persona to your brick-and-mortar life (and its corresponding non-anonymous accounts). I know it sucks living a double life like that but gay folks dealt with that way of life for years, and look at 'em now.

The last thing you want in a situation like that is to ruin your movement's chances at a more widespread acceptance (not saying conservativism is persecuted everywhere or even most places, merely some). One idiot terrorist sets everyone back. One of the murderers mentioned in that article famously said on Gab (a Twitter competitor) "screw your optics, I'm going in." Proof that this particular individual didn't give a fuck about the success of the right as a political movement and was acting entirely in his own deluded interests and vicious impatience.

Is it just me, or is this alt-right code for "Stay in the closet people!"