"I see no evidens"

Where no two people are likely to agree.
User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 11859
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

"I see no evidens"

Postby JO 753 » Sat May 20, 2017 4:06 am

You may recall sum memberz here liked to toss that fraze in wen confronted with evidens. xouper, for example.

The fraze haz bekum very popular with Trump supporterz theze dayz.

If you are trying to tell them about the Russia connectionz, they call it all Democratic propaganda, liberal media liez, and then go into a long 'Hillary/Obama are sore loozerz' rant. Anything you try to say gets interrupted with 'I see no evidens', (or replied in forumz) and denialz that they watch Fox, lissen to Rush, or any other rite wing outlet you name. If you ask 'where do you get your info' it usually amounts to they pulled it out uv their own ass no matter how closely it matchez the rite wing propaganda.

And uv course, they absolutely refuze to look at anything you offer, foolishly betraying the reazon 'they see no evidens'!

Today I put a 'conservative' frend uv mine to the test.

I had the latest from Rachel Maddow redy to show, and true to form, he coudnt be bothered. Prefered insted to argue for 20 minits.

Ignorans iz not going to be so blissful for theze peepl soon.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat May 20, 2017 4:37 am

It's a known psychological effect that you value something higher because you chose it over something else.

Trump supporters nowadays can only seek refuge in Fox and Breitbart: everywhere else it's a constant stream of "I told you so"; trying to avoid that is only human.
But many have moved out of the "Denial" phase of grief straight to "Depression", where they say as little as possible about Trump and will only get angry (stage2) if pressed.

On the other hand....

God it feels good to be proven right about everything Trump within only 4 months of his Presidency!
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 17311
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat May 20, 2017 6:41 am

If you don't see it, you're not looking... here's yet another tool for them to reject. (The graph reminded me of this, lol. )

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Sat May 20, 2017 11:44 am

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations


Image

Image
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9882
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby fromthehills » Sat May 20, 2017 12:44 pm

The purpose of the press is to find dirt on politicians. The less dirt, the less it gets reported.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 11859
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby JO 753 » Sat May 20, 2017 1:25 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:If you don't see it, you're not looking... here's yet another tool for them to reject. (The graph reminded me of this, lol. )


I see no evidens. I even klikt the links!

Wait, there it iz. Funny how it just pops rite up wen you open your eyez. :shock:

I alwayz hated that song. Think uv all the brick layerz in Chicago, for example, spending their livez stacking bricks & sement, just like their fatherz & grandfatherz, then this band uv spindly arm sissy rockerz kumz along trying to grab credit for all the work.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat May 20, 2017 2:29 pm

By the same token you could claim that the media is biased against Al'Qaida.
Seriously, it's not a bias to report facts.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 11859
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby JO 753 » Sat May 20, 2017 3:18 pm

Just like the appalling level uv radical left wing media bias agenst getting your nuts crunched in a vise.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 17311
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat May 20, 2017 3:58 pm

Maybe they should be reporting more on his golf scores. Or are they lousy, too?

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9882
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby fromthehills » Sat May 20, 2017 11:20 pm

Yeah, why doesn't the doctor tell me how much of my liver is still functional? Keeps focusing on cutting down drinking, blah blah blah. Biased bastard

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Wed May 31, 2017 1:49 am

Looks like the ridiculous anti-Trump bias isn't just confined to the legacy media...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7x7UPsttTY&feature=youtu.be
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 17311
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed May 31, 2017 3:23 am

...and here I thought you were talking about these guys...

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9882
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby fromthehills » Wed May 31, 2017 3:24 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Looks like the ridiculous anti-Trump bias isn't just confined to the legacy media...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7x7UPsttTY&feature=youtu.be


I see the point. Kinda sucks that some people aren't that savvy, but editing is a rockstar. Can't say how many knew to tell him to {!#%@} off. But it's easy to poke fun with a video like this, and it's easy to use a "you too" argument. It's also easy to fool people into giving the answers you want to prove a point.

Please outline positive contributions of the Trump administration? I'm all ears, or eyes.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Wed May 31, 2017 4:39 am

fromthehills wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Looks like the ridiculous anti-Trump bias isn't just confined to the legacy media...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7x7UPsttTY&feature=youtu.be


I see the point. Kinda sucks that some people aren't that savvy,


Most anti-Trumpers aren't "that savvy". Case in point: the anti-Trumpers on this forum.

but editing is a rockstar.


Yup, just ask CNN!

Please outline positive contributions of the Trump administration? I'm all ears, or eyes.


What do you mean by "positive"? I could talk about actions his administration has taken (or attempted to take) on illegal immigration, terrorism, Obamacare, trade deals, abortion, reducing taxes and reducing red tape, or I could talk about his appointment of a Supreme Court Justice and the performance of economic indicators since he took office, but you're so conditioned to hate him that you'd probably either refuse to see them as positives or you'd dismiss them because he's only been in office for about 130 days so far.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9882
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby fromthehills » Wed May 31, 2017 5:02 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
fromthehills wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Looks like the ridiculous anti-Trump bias isn't just confined to the legacy media...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7x7UPsttTY&feature=youtu.be


I see the point. Kinda sucks that some people aren't that savvy,


Most anti-Trumpers aren't "that savvy". Case in point: the anti-Trumpers on this forum.

but editing is a rockstar.


Yup, just ask CNN!


What do you mean by "positive"? I could talk about actions his administration has taken (or attempted to take) on illegal immigration, terrorism, Obamacare, trade deals, abortion, reducing taxes and reducing red tape, or I could talk about his appointment of a Supreme Court Justice and the performance of economic indicators since he took office, but you're so conditioned to hate him that you'd probably either refuse to see them as positives or you'd dismiss them because he's only been in office for about 130 days so far.


Tu quoqoe, again. Something you find works in your favor, though possibly done fallaciously is justified because something that you don't agree with does it too. Intellectually lazy.

Positive means that.. positive, opposite of negative. Trade is positive. Women in control of their own body is positive. He hasn't done {!#%@} to fight terrorism, so doesn't count.. I'm a Skeptic. A gun toting, pro legalization, pro choice, pro lgbtq hillbilly, so {!#%@} off. I'm conditioned to {!#%@} think, not to {!#%@} hate.. I {!#%@} hate Trump because he's an {!#%@}. If he wasn't, well, I wouldn't.

I generally like what you have to say, even though I think it's {!#%@} up, but I like reading it. But you making assumptions of what I am is just plain stupid on your part.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6608
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby TJrandom » Wed May 31, 2017 7:29 am

For Trumpers, to be blinded by faith is a common malady...

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:20 am

fromthehills wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
fromthehills wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Looks like the ridiculous anti-Trump bias isn't just confined to the legacy media...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7x7UPsttTY&feature=youtu.be


I see the point. Kinda sucks that some people aren't that savvy,


Most anti-Trumpers aren't "that savvy". Case in point: the anti-Trumpers on this forum.

but editing is a rockstar.


Yup, just ask CNN!


What do you mean by "positive"? I could talk about actions his administration has taken (or attempted to take) on illegal immigration, terrorism, Obamacare, trade deals, abortion, reducing taxes and reducing red tape, or I could talk about his appointment of a Supreme Court Justice and the performance of economic indicators since he took office, but you're so conditioned to hate him that you'd probably either refuse to see them as positives or you'd dismiss them because he's only been in office for about 130 days so far.


Tu quoqoe, again. Something you find works in your favor, though possibly done fallaciously is justified because something that you don't agree with does it too. Intellectually lazy.


No, I don't think it's okay for Campus Reform to deceptively edit just because CNN does it. I don't actually know whether the above clip is deceptively edited (although considering the irrational prejudice and sheer ignorance shown by anti-Trumpers in forums such as this, there's a good chance that it isn't). But even if it is, it makes no more sense to uncritically accept propaganda from the likes of CNN than it does to uncritically accept videos like this.

Positive means that.. positive, opposite of negative.


That doesn't tell me anything.

Trade is positive.


This statement is so broad that it's virtually meaningless. Trade in what? How? Under what conditions?

Women in control of their own body is positive.


Individuals in control of their own bodies is a good thing, regardless of their gender. But this doesn't mean an individual has the right to destroy someone else's body simply because that individual finds it convenient to do so.

He hasn't done {!#%@} to fight terrorism, so doesn't count..


He tried to implement a travel ban on seven terrorist-infested countries, and those Federal Court {!#%@} blocked him on BS ideological grounds TWICE. Don't damn well tell me "he hasn't done {!#%@} to fight terrorism", he hasn't been ALLOWED to do {!#%@} because of SJW {!#%@} who care more about spiting him and aiding their Islamist allies than they do about the safety of the American people!

I'm a Skeptic.


Forgive me if I don't believe you...

A gun toting, pro legalization, pro choice, pro lgbtq hillbilly, so {!#%@} off.


President Trump agrees with you on at least two of those four issues, and I agree with you on three of them. So why the hostility??

I'm conditioned to {!#%@} think, not to {!#%@} hate.. I {!#%@} hate Trump because he's an {!#%@}. If he wasn't, well, I wouldn't.


"I'm conditioned not to {!#%@} hate, but I {!#%@} hate Trump because he's an {!#%@}, because he is". Okaaaay then...

I generally like what you have to say, even though I think it's {!#%@} up, but I like reading it. But you making assumptions of what I am is just plain stupid on your part.


What assumptions have I made, and where did I articulate them?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Thu Jun 01, 2017 6:38 am

Nope, no anti-Trump bias here at all...

Image
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:12 am

The video of people being critical of Obama polices if they seem to come from Trump is the classical sleight-of-hand that has been around forever and knows no partisanship; take Romney-Care, which became toxic the moment Obama tried to implement it.

Simply Bayesian statistics show that policies coming from Trump and the current GOP are more likely to be flawed than those of Obama, who's administration kept armies of staffers busy to create laws and didn't draw them half-arsed on the back of a napkin.
So while uninformed, the gut reaction to oppose everything that Trump does isn't irrational.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:14 am

ElectricMonk wrote:The video of people being critical of Obama polices if they seem to come from Trump is the classical sleight-of-hand that has been around forever and knows no partisanship; take Romney-Care, which became toxic the moment Obama tried to implement it.


This doesn't actually weaken my point, if anything it strengthens it.

Simply Bayesian statistics show that policies coming from Trump and the current GOP are more likely to be flawed than those of Obama


Oh really?! Then by all means, please elaborate!

So while uninformed, the gut reaction to oppose everything that Trump does isn't irrational.


The only thing more irrational than making decisions in the absence of information is to think that it's rational to make decisions in the absence of information!
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 11859
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby JO 753 » Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:47 am

If it dropped out uv a horse'z ass, you dont need to bend over and sniff it to know wut it iz.

If sumwun tellz you it dropped out uv a horsez ass, are you going to verify their claim by taking a bite to taste it for yourself?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27845
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Gord » Sat Jun 03, 2017 2:45 pm

JO 753 wrote:If it dropped out uv a horse'z ass, you dont need to bend over and sniff it to know wut it iz.

If sumwun tellz you it dropped out uv a horsez ass, are you going to verify their claim by taking a bite to taste it for yourself?

It depends: Am I alone and given time for introspection, or am I on camera and being asked for an immediate response?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 17311
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:58 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:The video of people being critical of Obama polices if they seem to come from Trump is the classical sleight-of-hand that has been around forever and knows no partisanship; take Romney-Care, which became toxic the moment Obama tried to implement it.

Reminds me of the "horoscope test", but here's a pretty good study of the issue.

Simply Bayesian statistics show that policies coming from Trump and the current GOP are more likely to be flawed than those of Obama, who's administration kept armies of staffers busy to create laws and didn't draw them half-arsed on the back of a napkin.
So while uninformed, the gut reaction to oppose everything that Trump does isn't irrational.

Also quite common. :heh:

...The real story is that Trump’s negative coverage is being driven not by liberals or Democrats but by law-enforcement sources and pissed-off Republicans.

It’s important to understand the study’s methodology. According to its author, Harvard scholar Thomas Patterson, “Tone is judged from the perspective of the actor,” the actor being, in this case, Donald Trump. A story is coded as negative when “the actor is criticized directly”—for example when Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer told a reporter, “Eleven weeks into his administration, we have seen nothing from President Trump on infrastructure, on trade, or on any other serious job-creating initiative”—or when “an event, trend, or development reflects unfavorably on the actor.” So negative stories are either stories that quote someone griping about Trump, or stories about developments that cast a negative light on his performance.

And here’s a key point, as it relates to that first category: “Republican voices,” wrote Patterson, “accounted for 80 percent of what newsmakers said about the Trump presidency, compared to only 6 percent for Democrats and 3 percent for those involved in anti-Trump protests.”

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 17311
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:02 pm

TJrandom wrote:For Trumpers, to be blinded by faith is a common malady...

..and one builds on the other...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WinEKb18qbY

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 11859
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby JO 753 » Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:28 pm

Winner a winner.

She shoud get a medal! Our intellijens ajensyz totally dropped the ball last yir, imperiling the country, so anybody getting info out to us BEFOR it can be burned by whoever Trump puts in charj uv the FBI, NSA, etc. iz a true patriot, bravely doing a public servis.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27845
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Gord » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:31 am

JO 753 wrote:Winner a winner.

Her name is Reality Winner?? :jaded: FAKE NAMES ARE FAKE!
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25216
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:36 am

JO 753 wrote:She shoud get a medal! Our intellijens ajensyz totally dropped the ball last yir, imperiling the country, so anybody getting info out to us BEFOR it can be burned by whoever Trump puts in charj uv the FBI, NSA, etc. iz a true patriot, bravely doing a public servis.


"The complaint says she admitted to printing out the document and mailing it to the news outlet."

They have printers without counters, user codes or log books connected to their document library? That's pretty sloppy. :D

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 17311
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:54 am

I think I read she was one of several (six?) known to have printed the document - seems that's tracked?


ETA Not sure, An internal audit revealed Winner was one of six people who printed the document, but the only one who had email contact with the news outlet, according to the complaint.

User avatar
LunaNik
Regular Poster
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: State of Mind

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby LunaNik » Sun Jun 11, 2017 5:34 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:What do you mean by "positive"? I could talk about actions his administration has taken (or attempted to take) on illegal immigration, terrorism, Obamacare, trade deals, abortion, reducing taxes and reducing red tape, or I could talk about his appointment of a Supreme Court Justice and the performance of economic indicators since he took office, but you're so conditioned to hate him that you'd probably either refuse to see them as positives or you'd dismiss them because he's only been in office for about 130 days so far.

These are not positives by any metric:
  • Illegal Immigration - American employers continue to assume relatively little risk by hiring undocumented immigrants to perform menial, backbreaking work, often for little pay. Meanwhile, as Mr. Trump’s deportation crackdown accelerates, families are being ripped apart, and communities of hard-working immigrants with deep roots in this country are gripped by fear and uncertainty. Now, what illegal immigrant would bother coming here if no one would hire him?
  • Terrorism - As Trump continues to implement the Obama administration’s military strategy for defeating ISIS — for all his bluster about “bomb[ing] the {!#%@} out of … those suckers,” he has stuck pretty much to the same approach and personnel — that threat may, in the short term, grow rather than subside, as ISIS increasingly focuses on the West. And by word and deed, Trump has systematically weakened the measures necessary to counter it. Tweeting doesn't constitute fighting terrorism.
  • Obamacare v. Trumpcare - A Quinnipiac University poll finds voters disapprove 62 - 32 percent of the way President Donald Trump is handling health care and say 50 - 45 percent that he should not support efforts to repeal Obamacare. I guess putting the word "American" in the title didn't work.
  • Trade Deals - Signs of greater moderation were on display this week when Wilbur Ross, the secretary of commerce, suggested that the administration would actually try to build off some aspects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, or T.P.P., that Mr. Trump abandoned in January as Nafta renegotiations begin this summer. Mr. Ross also said that America’s trade deficit with Canada was “blameless” because it was the result of energy needs, rather than misdeeds. And he dismissed the idea that Mr. Trump was really ready to pull out of Nafta. That's a 180º from his campaign promise.
  • Abortion - I'm not even wasting my time. Trump has no ethical position on this issue, only a selfish one, as evidenced by the number of times he's changed his position drastically.
  • Reducing Taxes - Brownback and his supporters predicted that cutting taxes would create jobs and spur entrepreneurship while boosting government revenue. That isn’t what happened. Some conservatives have argued that Brownback’s experiment isn’t a fair test of their economic theories because Kansas didn’t pair its big tax cuts with equivalent reductions in government spending. But there’s a reason for that: Members of the public might not like paying taxes, but they do like the services those taxes pay for. When it looked like Kansas’s budget gap would lead to big cuts to education and highway spending, voters responded by throwing conservative legislators out of office and replacing them with the Democrats and moderate Republicans who this week overrode Brownback’s veto. This will be an abysmal failure as soon as people realize (1) they're not the ones getting the tax cuts, and (2) services funded by federal tax dollars start disappearing.
  • Reducing Red Tape - And thereby limiting his own power, like a dumbass. Trump's idiotic "get rid of two regulations for every new regulation" includes a zero cost measure that doesn't allow for benefits to be factored in. This means that he himself cannot put into place a new regulation without (1) getting rid of two existing regulations, and (2) ensuring that his new regulation doesn't cost anything. There's already a class action lawsuit.
  • SCOTUS Justice - Only made possible by Mitch McConnell's hypocritical end run around the Constitution. You're proud of this? You should be disgusted.
  • Economic Indicators - On Friday the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the May jobs report, and it was decidedly lackluster. US economic growth in the first quarter of Trump's presidency was humdrum at just 1.2% annualized gross-domestic-product growth. The market [doesn't count because it] is a forward-looking measure of investors’ expectations for profit growth at individual companies, not a referendum on the state of the economy. Not looking so shiny after all.
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:55 pm

LunaNik wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:What do you mean by "positive"? I could talk about actions his administration has taken (or attempted to take) on illegal immigration, terrorism, Obamacare, trade deals, abortion, reducing taxes and reducing red tape, or I could talk about his appointment of a Supreme Court Justice and the performance of economic indicators since he took office, but you're so conditioned to hate him that you'd probably either refuse to see them as positives or you'd dismiss them because he's only been in office for about 130 days so far.

These are not positives by any metric:


I just want to say thank you up front for proving my point.

Illegal Immigration - American employers continue to assume relatively little risk by hiring undocumented immigrants exploiting a de-facto slave labour force to perform menial, backbreaking work, often for little pay.


FIFY.

Meanwhile, as Mr. Trump’s deportation crackdown accelerates, families are being ripped apart, and communities of hard-working immigrants with deep roots in this country are gripped by fear and uncertainty.


If you're in the US illegally then it's a bit far-fetched to say that you have "deep roots" here. As for families being "ripped apart":
1) the US is not stopping people from moving back to their deported relatives' countries of origin to be with them;
2) the illegal immigrants themselves are primarily responsible if this happens, because they knew full well that deportation was a risk when they entered the country in the first place;
3) blame also rests with the policy makers who allowed illegals to have anchor babies, because it was THIS thoughtless policy decision more than any other which created the possibility of families with illegals one day being "ripped apart".

Now, what illegal immigrant would bother coming here if no one would hire him?


"Now, what plantation owner would bother acquiring slaves if slaves were too expensive?"

Are you for or against illegal immigration? Please make up your mind.

Terrorism - As Trump continues to implement the Obama administration’s military strategy for defeating ISIS — for all his bluster about “bomb[ing] the {!#%@} out of … those suckers,” he has stuck pretty much to the same approach and personnel — that threat may, in the short term, grow rather than subside, as ISIS increasingly focuses on the West. And by word and deed, Trump has systematically weakened the measures necessary to counter it.


Well considering he's been in office all of 5 months, it wouldn't surprise me that his approach and personnel have been "pretty much" the same as the previous administration thus far. Yes the threat "may" grow, it "may" also not grow too. The line about how he has "systematically weakened" the measures to counter it is nothing but BS polemic.

Tweeting doesn't constitute fighting terrorism.


I never said it does. I've never encountered anyone who said it does. Travel bans from AND to terrorist-infested countries on the other hand do, no matter how many politically compromised Federal Court judges oppose them.

Obamacare v. Trumpcare - A Quinnipiac University poll finds voters disapprove 62 - 32 percent of the way President Donald Trump is handling health care and say 50 - 45 percent that he should not support efforts to repeal Obamacare. I guess putting the word "American" in the title didn't work.


50 - 45 percent is not a big gap, especially considering how left-leaning (i.e. prone to anti-Trump bias) Quinnipac University is. 62% of respondents may disapprove of how he is handling healthcare, but that doesn't really tell us why they disapprove nor does it tell necessarily tell us that they like Obamacare.

Trade Deals - Signs of greater moderation were on display this week when Wilbur Ross, the secretary of commerce, suggested that the administration would actually try to build off some aspects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, or T.P.P., that Mr. Trump abandoned in January as Nafta renegotiations begin this summer. Mr. Ross also said that America’s trade deficit with Canada was “blameless” because it was the result of energy needs, rather than misdeeds. And he dismissed the idea that Mr. Trump was really ready to pull out of Nafta. That's a 180º from his campaign promise.


It's not a 180 from his campaign promise. Trump said he wanted to negotiate trade deals that were favourable to the US and to renegotiate existing deals more favourably. The claim that he wants to "build off some aspects of" the TPP just tells us that there were some aspects of the TPP that he likes, not that he is going to resurrect it.

Abortion - I'm not even wasting my time. Trump has no ethical position on this issue, only a selfish one, as evidenced by the number of times he's changed his position drastically.


I'm only aware of his changing his position "drastically" on the issue once when he went from pro- to anti-, and that was before he started his Presidential campaign. Far be it from me or indeed anyone to begrudge a person because there position on a particular issue evolved to become more logical and humane.

Reducing Taxes - Brownback and his supporters predicted that cutting taxes would create jobs and spur entrepreneurship while boosting government revenue. That isn’t what happened. Some conservatives have argued that Brownback’s experiment isn’t a fair test of their economic theories because Kansas didn’t pair its big tax cuts with equivalent reductions in government spending. But there’s a reason for that: Members of the public might not like paying taxes, but they do like the services those taxes pay for. When it looked like Kansas’s budget gap would lead to big cuts to education and highway spending, voters responded by throwing conservative legislators out of office and replacing them with the Democrats and moderate Republicans who this week overrode Brownback’s veto.


Kansas =/= the United States. Look it up if you don't believe me.

[i]This will be an abysmal failure as soon as people realize (1) they're not the ones getting the tax cuts, and (2) services funded by federal tax dollars start disappearing.


President Trump's proposed tax cuts are across the board, so I'm not too worried about (1). As for (2), just because a "service" is funded by federal tax dollars it doesn't mean that it is being delivered efficiently, or even that it is optimal for the Federal Government to be providing it at taxpayer expense.

Reducing Red Tape - [i]And thereby limiting his own power, like a dumbass.


I know this might be a hard concept for power-lusting Leftists to get their heads around, but some people actually think that free enterprise and reducing the government's ability to abuse its power are more important than being able to wield that power for one's own selfish ends.

Trump's idiotic "get rid of two regulations for every new regulation" includes a zero cost measure that doesn't allow for benefits to be factored in. This means that he himself cannot put into place a new regulation without (1) getting rid of two existing regulations, and (2) ensuring that his new regulation doesn't cost anything. There's already a class action lawsuit.


The main idea of that policy is to stem the proliferation of unnecessary NEW regulations. If a new regulation *is* introduced, then the scrapping of two old regulations is in effect a consolation prize, and necessity will demand that the regulations to be scrapped are chosen through careful cost-benefit analysis. This policy wouldn't be necessary if government wasn't inherently predisposed to being so much better at piling on new regulations than clearing out old ones.

Naturally there's a lawsuit, because the Democrats and the Left are hell-bent on obstructing President Trump at every turn out of sheer spite.

SCOTUS Justice - [i]Only made possible by Mitch McConnell's hypocritical end run around the Constitution. You're proud of this? You should be disgusted.


:lol: "How dare you use this weapon that we used against you!" If there's anyone who should be disgusted with themselves then its the butt-hurt sore loser Democrats who pushed the Republicans into using it. At any rate President Trump has already managed to turn the Supreme Court conservative, and in this case the result is far more relevant than the perfectly legal and far-from-unprecedented means used to achieve it.

Economic Indicators - On Friday the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the May jobs report, and it was decidedly lackluster. US economic growth in the first quarter of Trump's presidency was humdrum at just 1.2% annualized gross-domestic-product growth. The market [doesn't count because it] is a forward-looking measure of investors’ expectations for profit growth at individual companies, not a referendum on the state of the economy. [i]Not looking so shiny after all.


And yet if the May jobs report and 1st quarter economic growth were remarkably robust then you'd be giving the credit to Obama on the grounds that Trump has only been in office for a few months. Conversely, if the market was performing poorly then you'd be blaming Trump on the grounds that his Presidency was bad for business confidence. The 1.2% annualized GDP growth rate significantly exceeded the forecast of 0.7%, but no doubt you'd be quite happy to credit this to Obama as well despite referring to it as "humdrum" directly above! So again, thanks for proving my original point so resoundingly.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Treating Trump Derangement Syndrome

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:05 pm

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 17311
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:27 pm

Hey, you're back! Not looking too good for your guy, eh? :-P

User avatar
LunaNik
Regular Poster
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: State of Mind

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby LunaNik » Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:53 pm

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
LunaNik wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:What do you mean by "positive"? I could talk about actions his administration has taken (or attempted to take) on illegal immigration, terrorism, Obamacare, trade deals, abortion, reducing taxes and reducing red tape, or I could talk about his appointment of a Supreme Court Justice and the performance of economic indicators since he took office, but you're so conditioned to hate him that you'd probably either refuse to see them as positives or you'd dismiss them because he's only been in office for about 130 days so far.
These are not positives by any metric:
I just want to say thank you up front for proving my point.
I didn't. You created a false dilemma here that gave you an out to dismiss anything anyone posted in response. Further, you said that you "could talk about" what you perceived to be positive actions of the Trump administration, yet you have not done so, nor explained why you believe said actions to be positive. Ante up or leave the table.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
LunaNik wrote:Illegal Immigration - American employers continue to assume relatively little risk by hiring undocumented immigrants exploiting a de-facto slave labour force to perform menial, backbreaking work, often for little pay.
FIFY.
You fixed nothing; you dangled a red herring to avoid addressing the topic of employees being let off after violating federal law.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
LunaNik wrote:Meanwhile, as Mr. Trump’s deportation crackdown accelerates, families are being ripped apart, and communities of hard-working immigrants with deep roots in this country are gripped by fear and uncertainty.
If you're in the US illegally then it's a bit far-fetched to say that you have "deep roots" here.
Another logic fail. Forming deep roots in a community and a country is not dependent on being a citizen; it's dependent on having spent time there working, developing relationships, etc.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
LunaNik wrote:Now, what illegal immigrant would bother coming here if no one would hire him?
"Now, what plantation owner would bother acquiring slaves if slaves were too expensive?"
Well done. You made an analogy. It's not a very good one. What's your point?

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Are you for or against illegal immigration? Please make up your mind.
No one is "for" illegal immigration. The debate is about what to do about those who are already here. There's your way, which presupposes that all illegal immigrants are horrible criminals and gives you an excuse to treat them inhumanely. And there's my way, which recognizes that our economy would collapse without them, so we should find a reasonable compromise.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
LunaNik wrote:Terrorism - As Trump continues to implement the Obama administration’s military strategy for defeating ISIS — for all his bluster about “bomb[ing] the {!#%@} out of … those suckers,” he has stuck pretty much to the same approach and personnel — that threat may, in the short term, grow rather than subside, as ISIS increasingly focuses on the West. And by word and deed, Trump has systematically weakened the measures necessary to counter it.
Well considering he's been in office all of 5 months, it wouldn't surprise me that his approach and personnel have been "pretty much" the same as the previous administration thus far. Yes the threat "may" grow, it "may" also not grow too. The line about how he has "systematically weakened" the measures to counter it is nothing but BS polemic.
Fails to address your initial point.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
LunaNik wrote:Tweeting doesn't constitute fighting terrorism.
I never said it does. I've never encountered anyone who said it does. Travel bans from AND to terrorist-infested countries on the other hand do, no matter how many politically compromised Federal Court judges oppose them.
And yet the countries he chose were not involved in terrorist activities against the US...and he omitted from the list countries that were involved in terrorism against the US. I call bull-shit. Money was the reason for that list, not terrorism. Otherwise, Saudi Arabia would have been on it.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
LunaNik wrote:Obamacare v. Trumpcare - A Quinnipiac University poll finds voters disapprove 62 - 32 percent of the way President Donald Trump is handling health care and say 50 - 45 percent that he should not support efforts to repeal Obamacare. I guess putting the word "American" in the title didn't work.
50 - 45 percent is not a big gap, especially considering how left-leaning (i.e. prone to anti-Trump bias) Quinnipac University is. 62% of respondents may disapprove of how he is handling healthcare, but that doesn't really tell us why they disapprove nor does it tell necessarily tell us that they like Obamacare.
LMAO! Quinnipiac has a +0.7 Republican bias; it is not "left-leaning" by any metric. Keep that in mind while reviewing the results of the newer June 8th poll:
• American voters disapprove 62 - 17 percent of the Republican health care plan, compared to a 57 - 20 percent disapproval in a May 25 Quinnipiac University poll.
• Voters oppose 65 - 30 percent decreasing federal funding for Medicaid.
• Voters disapprove 66 - 28 percent of the way Trump is handling health care.
• Only 29 percent of voters are "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" with the way things are going in the nation today, while 70 percent are "somewhat dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied."


Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
LunaNik wrote:Trade Deals - Signs of greater moderation were on display this week when Wilbur Ross, the secretary of commerce, suggested that the administration would actually try to build off some aspects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, or T.P.P., that Mr. Trump abandoned in January as Nafta renegotiations begin this summer. Mr. Ross also said that America’s trade deficit with Canada was “blameless” because it was the result of energy needs, rather than misdeeds. And he dismissed the idea that Mr. Trump was really ready to pull out of Nafta. That's a 180º from his campaign promise.
It's not a 180 from his campaign promise. Trump said he wanted to negotiate trade deals that were favourable to the US and to renegotiate existing deals more favourably. The claim that he wants to "build off some aspects of" the TPP just tells us that there were some aspects of the TPP that he likes, not that he is going to resurrect it.
This is a 180º from his campaign promise.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
LunaNik wrote:url=http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Donald_Trump_Abortion.htm]Abortion[/url] - I'm not even wasting my time. Trump has no ethical position on this issue, only a selfish one, as evidenced by the number of times he's changed his position drastically.
I'm only aware of his changing his position "drastically" on the issue once when he went from pro- to anti-, and that was before he started his Presidential campaign. Far be it from me or indeed anyone to begrudge a person because there position on a particular issue evolved to become more logical and humane.
So you don't research the candidates you support? His position has changed multiple times, both in the long-term and recently.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
LunaNik wrote:Reducing Taxes - Brownback and his supporters predicted that cutting taxes would create jobs and spur entrepreneurship while boosting government revenue. That isn’t what happened. Some conservatives have argued that Brownback’s experiment isn’t a fair test of their economic theories because Kansas didn’t pair its big tax cuts with equivalent reductions in government spending. But there’s a reason for that: Members of the public might not like paying taxes, but they do like the services those taxes pay for. When it looked like Kansas’s budget gap would lead to big cuts to education and highway spending, voters responded by throwing conservative legislators out of office and replacing them with the Democrats and moderate Republicans who this week overrode Brownback’s veto.
Kansas =/= the United States. Look it up if you don't believe me.
This is called an "analogy." Unlike yours above, this one is sound.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
LunaNik wrote:This will be an abysmal failure as soon as people realize (1) they're not the ones getting the tax cuts, and (2) services funded by federal tax dollars start disappearing.
President Trump's proposed tax cuts are across the board, so I'm not too worried about (1). As for (2), just because a "service" is funded by federal tax dollars it doesn't mean that it is being delivered efficiently, or even that it is optimal for the Federal Government to be providing it at taxpayer expense.
This is not true, and your statement based on it is not logical. Your allegation for (2) is refuted by Medicare, which is delivered more efficiently, more cheaply, and with lower administrative costs than any private health insurance company...and has maintained this model for decades.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
LunaNik wrote:Reducing Red Tape - And thereby limiting his own power, like a dumbass.
I know this might be a hard concept for power-lusting Leftists to get their heads around, but some people actually think that free enterprise and reducing the government's ability to abuse its power are more important than being able to wield that power for one's own selfish ends.
1. You don't know what "leftist" means.
2. Some people might think that; Trump isn't one of them.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
LunaNik wrote:Trump's idiotic "get rid of two regulations for every new regulation" includes a zero cost measure that doesn't allow for benefits to be factored in. This means that he himself cannot put into place a new regulation without (1) getting rid of two existing regulations, and (2) ensuring that his new regulation doesn't cost anything. There's already a class action lawsuit.
The main idea of that policy is to stem the proliferation of unnecessary NEW regulations. If a new regulation *is* introduced, then the scrapping of two old regulations is in effect a consolation prize, and necessity will demand that the regulations to be scrapped are chosen through careful cost-benefit analysis. This policy wouldn't be necessary if government wasn't inherently predisposed to being so much better at piling on new regulations than clearing out old ones.
I thoroughly understand the idea behind the policy, but it doesn't pan out in practice, because the cost-benefit analysis only takes into account money on both sides of the equation, not what benefits the regulation provides in the long run...or even what money it saves.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
LunaNik wrote:SCOTUS Justice - Only made possible by Mitch McConnell's hypocritical end run around the Constitution. You're proud of this? You should be disgusted.
:lol: "How dare you use this weapon that we used against you!" If there's anyone who should be disgusted with themselves then its the butt-hurt sore loser Democrats who pushed the Republicans into using it.
WTactualF are you talking about? "You pushed me into violating the Constitution" is pure and unadulterated bull-shit, and you know it.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
LunaNik wrote:Economic Indicators - On Friday the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the May jobs report, and it was decidedly lackluster. US economic growth in the first quarter of Trump's presidency was humdrum at just 1.2% annualized gross-domestic-product growth. The market [doesn't count because it] is a forward-looking measure of investors’ expectations for profit growth at individual companies, not a referendum on the state of the economy. Not looking so shiny after all.
And yet if the May jobs report and 1st quarter economic growth were remarkably robust then you'd be giving the credit to Obama on the grounds that Trump has only been in office for a few months. Conversely, if the market was performing poorly then you'd be blaming Trump on the grounds that his Presidency was bad for business confidence. The 1.2% annualized GDP growth rate significantly exceeded the forecast of 0.7%, but no doubt you'd be quite happy to credit this to Obama as well despite referring to it as "humdrum" directly above! So again, thanks for proving my original point so resoundingly.
1. You made the claim that Trump has done positive things that have affected the economy. The burden of proof is on you.
2. Nothing I posted proved your point. Again, you've failed Logic 101 with your circular reasoning.
3. The forecast of 0.7% that you quote was based on incomplete data, so comparing it to actual growth using complete data is masturbatory at best.
4. On what do you base your assumption that I'm an Obama apologist? Or even a Democrat?
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 11859
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby JO 753 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:41 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GtnpEbXH0I

The guy on the left soundz like he'z doing a voise for a cartoon karakter!
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.


Return to “Politics and Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest