"I see no evidens"

Where no two people are likely to agree.
User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12025
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: 2949
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:
Spoiler:
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: 18873
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: 1417
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: 9884
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: 12025
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: 2949
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:
Spoiler:
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: 12025
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: 18873
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: 9884
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: 1417
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: 18873
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: 9884
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: 1417
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: 9884
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 7K Posts
Posts: 7013
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: 1417
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: 1417
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: 2949
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:
Spoiler:
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: 1417
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: 12025
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: 28704
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: 18873
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: 18873
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: 12025
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: 28704
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: 25968
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: 18873
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
Nikki Nyx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Nikki Nyx » 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: 1417
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: 1417
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: 18873
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
Nikki Nyx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Nikki Nyx » 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: 12025
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.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:38 pm

LunaNik wrote:
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.


I didn’t create a false dilemma. Saying that someone will PROBABLY respond in one way or another does not a false dilemma make. And yes, you have proven my point throughout both of your responses to me, which is why I thanked you for proving my point in advance.


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.


Yes, I said I *could* talk about them, but I also said that there wasn’t really much point in doing so here for the aforementioned reasons.

As for why said actions of President Trump are positive, the answer is really quite simple: they are consistent with what his voters want and what he promised them in his campaign.


Ante up or leave the table.


Right back at ya.


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.


My edit to your comment wasn’t anything like a red herring. You, however, quoted the above passage in a manner which was deliberately misleading in terms of your support for illegal immigration on economic grounds, so as to set me up for your lame “gotcha!” attempt. To wit, my “red-herring” actually speaks to your point about employer culpability rather than distracting from it. So in the interests of putting this disingenuous asinine accusation of yours to bed, I will make something clear: I support strong penalties, especially heavy fines, for employers who hire illegals, and I think that the proceeds from those fines should be used to fund deportations, border security and The Wall.



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.


If there’s any logic fail here it’s on your end. I didn’t actually say that being a citizen is necessary in order to have deep roots in the US, and millions of legal non-citizen permanent residents are testament to this. Being an illegal resident however necessarily means that you hold the US in contempt as a sovereign nation, and it also means that your deepest roots and allegiances are likely to be with your country of origin.



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?


It’s quite good actually, it just went over your head. My point is that the logic which you yourself used here is the same logic that would have been used by antebellum slavery advocates. I am saying that there is a moral problem with illegal immigrant labor which outweighs its purported economic benefits. Again, this argument speaks to your point about the culpability of employers rather than distracting from it.



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.


The debate is not just about those who are already here, if it were then the Left would not be virtue signalling about a “world without borders” and they wouldn’t be throwing a massive temper-tantrum over President Trump’s proposed Border Wall.

There's your way, which presupposes that all illegal immigrants are horrible criminals and gives you an excuse to treat them inhumanely.


Could your Straw Man be any more obvious?? I am not presupposing that all of them are “horrible criminals”, I am simply presupposing that they are breaking the law be being in the US. And far from looking for an excuse to treat them inhumanely, I want to do things that will put an end to their inhumane treatment and exploitation at the hands of unscrupulous employers, organized crime and fellow border-crossers. Btw the notion that it is inhumane to merely deport illegals is a racist insult to their countries of origin.

And there's my way, which recognizes that our economy would collapse without them, so we should find a reasonable compromise.


Again you’re making an argument which is disturbingly similar to the arguments of antebellum slavery advocates. Every other country in the developed world manages to function without a huge underclass of illegal labourers, and it is both economically defeatist and ethically repugnant to suggest that the US can't do likewise. You fear of economic collapse resulting from ending illegal immigration, and yet going after employers of illegals like you suggest would invite the very economic collapse you fear!



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.


Well you know what, considering he's been in office all of five months and had to deal with the ridiculous muh Russia crap for pretty much that whole time, I'm quite happy to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point given that the monumental foreign policy {!#%@} he's been handed was 16 years in the making!



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.


If you're saying that the travel bans should have included more countries, then I wholeheartedly agree! Unfortunately geopolitical realities are such that including certain countries wouldn't have been feasible, so the President did the next best thing and included countries that are either openly hostile to the US or have been turned into giant open-air terrorist training grounds after years of violent conflict. And yet even the limited bans that he proposed got shut down by overreaching activist judges amidst a giant collective shitfit from every Leftard and xirs transgender dog because of the idiotic notion that they were "Muslim bans".



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."





Both of those polls sample almost one-and-a-half times as many Democrats as Republicans, how does that equate to a +0.7 Republican bias?? Even if the independents and others sampled are 50-50 in terms of left or right inclination (which is doubtful given that 1) Quinnipac University's well known left-wing culture and 2) the fact that its polling is focused in several blue states and swing states but zero red states), those polls are still going to have a pro-Democrat/Left bias which isn't even vaguely reflective of the 2016 Election.



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.



No it's not.



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.


So you don't read the articles you cite? Apparently not, because if you did you'd know that Trump changed his position ONCE from pro- to anti-abortion sometime between 1999 and 2011. The rest of the article is typical Washington Compost propaganda designed to blown things out of proportion by trying to paint an accidental verbal slip-up and the ironing out of secondary considerations over the course of his election campaign as fundamental contradictions in his position on the abortion issue.



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.


It really isn't. There are so many differences between Kansas and the US - in terms of GDP sizes, economic composition, population size, tax systems, separation of powers, access to debt financing, the influence of the Federal Reserve, relevant political landscapes, the list goes on - that trying to infer what will happen to the latter based on the experience of the former is like trying to guess how well a full-size jumbo jet will fly at 30,000ft based on how well a biplane flies at 3,000ft.



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.


Trump's proposed tax cuts are indeed across the board.

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.


BS. And even if it were true, a single example is nowhere near sufficient to disprove my statement.


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.


I know all too well what "leftist" means. A leftist is someone who looks at life in terms of how things 'should' be, rather than how they are. A leftist is someone who thinks the world needs to be micromanaged (by leftists, of course) because people can't be trusted to take the best courses of action on their own. A leftist is someone who wants to force others to pay for his own shortcomings and egotistical whims, and thinks himself virtuous for doing so. A leftist is someone who thinks that the answer to problems caused by meddlesome intervention is more meddlesome intervention. A leftist is someone who is always on the lookout for a victimhood narrative, and for someone else to blame for her problems (both real and imagined). A leftist is someone who worships Government as if it were a god, even/especially when he considers himself atheist. A leftist is someone who believes that the end justifies the means.

President Trump has been a successful businessman for decades, and as a world-famous billionaire in his 70s the last thing he needed was a political career and all the crap that comes with it. He of all people would understand and appreciate the value of getting the government out of the way, hence his desire to lower taxes and cut red tape.



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.


Like I said, there is nothing in the policy which explicitly prevents that from being taken into consideration. However it is very difficult to determine both where the effects of a regulation end and how scenarios of non-regulation will play out without actually allowing them to play out. But to say that we shouldn't get rid of a regulation because doing so might cause this or that problem in the long run is like a hoarder saying that he needs to hang onto those twenty pairs of decades-old mould-infested boots because you never know when they might come in handy someday.



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.


How is it a violation of the Constitution?



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.


That I did, and you proved my point by trying to pre-emptively explain away evidence that he has had a positive impact on the economy.

2. Nothing I posted proved your point. Again, you've failed Logic 101 with your circular reasoning.

I’m not engaging in circular reasoning, I’m making a reasonable inference based on the evidence I’ve seen…..

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.

….such as this comment. Forecasts typically are based on incomplete data (given that they are, you know, forecasts). Nevertheless there is nothing “mastubatory” about the fact that actual growth exceeded expectations.
4. On what do you base your assumption that I'm an Obama apologist? Or even a Democrat?

I didn’t make those assumptions. I merely assumed that you would probably try to credit Obama for any good economic news from the past several months. This doesn’t require you to be an Obama or Democrat apologist, it just requires you to dislike Trump enough that you would happily attribute good things achieved by/under him to any other source so long as it seemed even semi-plausible.
"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
Nikki Nyx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:10 pm

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote: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.
This is a false dilemma that gives you an advance excuse to dismiss any response, proven by the fact that you have used it as such.

Your characterizations of Trump's policies are unrealistic and not borne out by the facts. Your understanding of political ideologies is laughably parochial, based not only on your description of "leftist" in this thread, but also your hilarious "far-right fallacy" thread, which reduces complex ideologies to one-dimensional stereotypes, and attempts to categorize movements based on the labels they gave themselves. Do yourself a favor: Take this test and find out where you really stand. Then compare it to this:
Image
Clearly, "left" and "right" have no meaning in and of themselves. The conversation must both include economic outlook and level of government intervention to have any meaning. Otherwise, it would be accurate to label Trump, Cruz, Obama, Clinton, Paul, and Johnson as "far right," and leave it at that. But that doesn't tell the whole story, does it? Add in the second axis, and now you've got the whole picture. Surprise...Trump wants more government involvement in people's lives than Sanders, the self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist (which he's not).

It's odd; I've found many of your posts to be logical and well-thought-out...until it comes to politics. Here, you allow your emotions to drive your arguments, and it doesn't work. If you shut down your emotions and examined the facts about Trump's tax policy, the border wall, and other things, you'd realize the lack of logic inherent in these ideas. You'd know they're not fiscally sound and they don't benefit the average American.

FWIW, I don't hate Trump; I simply recognize him for what he is: a profiteer. Nor am I an Obama apologist, which you would see if you took the time to read my comments in other threads. Frankly, Obama did quite a lot for corporations and the 1%, and not much for working Americans. Trump will be exactly the same, as evidenced by the policies he's already enacted and planned to enact. Clinton would have been the same too.
...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

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25968
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:01 am

LunaNik wrote: Ante up or leave the table.
I see you have met our very own, insane anti-Muslim and anti-left extremist, Kwan Tom Woo.

He started spamming, up to five "pro-Trump" posts in row, across threads during the US election, using words like "Libtards" and "Hitlery Clinton" and claimed our forum was a leftist echo chamber. He wanted to make America great again....

However on the Rational Skeptic forum he used an Australian Flag as his avatar. So... is he an Australian who wants to make America great again, or an American who pretended to be Australian as he was embarrased about being American? (He refuses to answer that gem of a question) He's probably a follower of the tiny extremist, anti-Muslim, anti-Asian "One Nation" Australian party) :D


In reality, if you click on his signature on the bottom of his posts, and click through the "Extremist website" warnings you will see what his aim is. It is to promote his extremist views as his blog gets no hits.
"Tools to Help You Educate Your Fellow Non-Muslims About Islam"

One of his more insane activities here was trying to prove the Nazis were really "leftists" and therefore claim "leftists are as bad as Nazis". It was hilarious, simply because he didn't know one historical leftist paper, so he made up his own views on what socialist theories are or were. It's a bit hard to discuss Marxist-Leninism if you haven't read Marx or Lenin. :D

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:17 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:One of his more insane activities here was trying to prove the Nazis were really "leftists" and therefore claim "leftists are as bad as Nazis". It was hilarious, simply because he didn't know one historical leftist paper, so he made up his own views on what socialist theories are or were. It's a bit hard to discuss Marxist-Leninism if you haven't read Marx or Lenin. :D
:lol: That reminds me of people who insist that China is a communist country. When I point out to them that communism specifically repudiates the right of the State to exist, and that there has never been a communist government in the history of humanity, they look at me like I'm unAmerican. *sigh* These are generally the same people who use "communism," "fascism," and "socialism" interchangeably.

People today use "liberal" and "leftist" interchangeably, and they're not remotely the same ideology. I think friend Kwan might be surprised to hear that liberalism includes support of free markets.
...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

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25968
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:04 am

LunaNik wrote: That reminds me of people who insist that China is a communist country. When I point out to them that communism specifically repudiates the right of the State to exist, and that there has never been a communist government in the history of humanity, they look at me like I'm unAmerican. *sigh* These are generally the same people who use "communism," "fascism," and "socialism" interchangeably.


That's nothing. Kwan tom Woo, "the poo", is so permanently confused he claims North Korea is democratic. :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=27894&p=564035&hilit=Korea#p564035

I don't think Kwan tom woo has any coherent political views at all. He's just the holocaust deniers. He simply has some sort of OCD personality disorder, to post things on a science/skeptic based forum to prove to himself he is "someone". Everyone on this forum laughs at him but he keeps posting. His target audience would actually be on monster truck forums or NRA forums or KKK forums.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:15 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:That's nothing. Kwan tom Woo, "the poo", is so permanently confused he claims North Korea is democratic. :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=27894&p=564035&hilit=Korea#p564035

I don't think Kwan tom woo has any coherent political views at all. He's just the holocaust deniers. He simply has some sort of OCD personality disorder, to post things on a science/skeptic based forum to prove to himself he is "someone". Everyone on this forum laughs at him but he keeps posting. His target audience would actually be on monster truck forums or NRA forums or KKK forums.

Good grief! Holding fake elections doesn't make it a democracy. :rotfl: I suppose he thinks Singapore is a democracy too, even though one party has "won" every election in the past 60 years?
...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


Return to “Politics and Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest