Donald Trump

"

Jojas wrote:

His advice to stop smoking is not relevant, that's just covering his tracks.

How is that substantially different than saying that he wants individuals to quit smoking of their own volition, without expensive federal government involvement, and the misleading stats are just posted to cover his tracks with phillip morris (and therefore not relevant).

Look I'm with you for the most part. The guy obviously and dangerously ignores even the most basic science across all of his positions. But I think you need to give credit where it's due. When the man tells people to stop smoking, it should go in the credit column, even if it is demonstrably hypocritical.

This could be used as a great opportunity to discuss what he actually cited (which I think the numbers are true, or were at the time) and why those statistics don't, in fact, prove that 'smoking doesn't kill'. It would be a great case study in statistical and scientific literacy for junior high/high school students, and for adults who could use a refresher on their critical thinking skills.

"

innervation wrote:

"

Jojas wrote:

His advice to stop smoking is not relevant, that's just covering his tracks.

How is that substantially different than saying that he wants individuals to quit smoking of their own volition, without expensive federal government involvement, and the misleading stats are just posted to cover his tracks with phillip morris (and therefore not relevant).

The substantial difference is the one I already mentioned. Telling someone to stop smoking usually has no effect whatsoever, especially not without context, and even less so when done by someone who you do not know personally. Smokers know that they should stop smoking. Hearing it once again from yet another person doesn't change a thing. I think it would be naive to assume he doesn't know that.

But a sentence like "Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill"? Notice his wording: "hysteria", "political class", "the media". That's manipulation. He's counting on people not being fond of "hysteria" and having a degree of mistrust for the other two.
He also manages to omit science, i.e. the ones with the facts. He paints a picture of an agenda that has no roots in facts but instead is guided by emotions on the one hand, and the desire to tell people how to live their lives on the other, and by nothing else.
He does this for one reason: To cover up that the numbers he is about to give completely contradict his statement that "smoking doesn't kill".

I think this really sticks out, and nothing he says afterwards is of any particular consequence.
But you might be right, I could have at least mentioned it. I believe people should always click on a source in cases like this, to see it on context, and I thought linking to it would be enough. It's not a 10 page speech after all.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Kekus vult.

There is more!



Also, Trump Pence = TP = Toilet Paper

Kekus Vult indeed (?).

My inability to take certain posters on this board seriously has reached a new low. =0[.]o=

No one cares. I'll keep mocking your birther god emperor. I'll embrace the dank.

Actually we should be encouraging smoking obesity etc. Mainly due to socialism. Smokers costs us less. There are peer reviewed studies on this.

No sucking off social security for 30 years - you die early after all.

Everyone needs terminal treatments. Even health nuts. Difference is the fatties and smokers don't suck tax payers to live an extra 20-30 years.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/#37d585613c21

If you want to make argument you care that old people with zero utility make it to 85 thats different. But stop pretending unhealthy habits cost us more.

We should issue a motorcycle, no helmet, a backpack of Twinkies, and a carton of non filtered cigarettes to every 16 yr old if cost is concern.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-UWA3vri1o#t=8.538125


Just saw this video thought some of you might be interested

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Actually we should be encouraging smoking obesity etc. Mainly due to socialism. Smokers costs us less. There are peer reviewed studies on this.

No sucking off social security for 30 years - you die early after all.

Everyone needs terminal treatments. Even health nuts. Difference is the fatties and smokers don't suck tax payers to live an extra 20-30 years.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/#37d585613c21

If you want to make argument you care that old people with zero utility make it to 85 thats different. But stop pretending unhealthy habits cost us more.

We should issue a motorcycle, no helmet, a backpack of Twinkies, and a carton of non filtered cigarettes to every 16 yr old if cost is concern.

That is pretty cheesy argument. A dead person don't pay for health care, they don't pay taxes either.