Donald Trump and US politics

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Unlike logic, reality doesn't play by the rules.

Yeah, in some ways it's a big Ponzi scheme that will collapse,

Translation: unlike logic, the mass delusion we've cultivated and labeled "reality" doesn't play by the rules.

Well, it doesn't. But reality — the real one — still does, thus the scheme will inevitably collapse.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Until robots get paychecks, they won't replace consumers

Are you suggesting that the makers and servicers of robots don't consume? Maybe they're like the Joker and burn all the money.

What I am saying is no different than Grinding Gear Games trying to grow its base of players. If more bots played PoE, would GGG make more money?

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Unlike logic, reality doesn't play by the rules.

Yeah, in some ways it's a big Ponzi scheme that will collapse,

Translation: unlike logic, the mass delusion we've cultivated and labeled "reality" doesn't play by the rules.

Well, it doesn't. But reality — the real one — still does, thus the scheme will inevitably collapse.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Until robots get paychecks, they won't replace consumers

Are you suggesting that the makers and servicers of robots don't consume? Maybe they're like the Joker and burn all the money.

What I am saying is no different than Grinding Gear Games trying to grow its base of players. If more bots played PoE, would GGG make more money?

Only if GGG is Blizzard and their game is World of Warcraft.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

So we should take him on his word? Look at what he's calling "fake news" - the fucking New York Times. That's no fake news. That's a long-running and extremely respectable newspaper with over a hundred pulitzers to its name.

The NYT has had a few scandals, including some plagiarism.

If we could so a series of lie detector tests on lots of journalists - with the question being asked:

If you knew you could get Trump impeached from office by public promoting one single lie as truthful news, would you do it?

What do you think the answers would be, and what do you think the lie detector would tell us the answers really are?

Far too many people have grown up thinking that whatever version of the truth they have been taught is the only possible answer, and that beating the other side is more important than working together towards a solution.

Whether the NYT is viewed as mostly fake, occasionally fake or just heavily biased, the effect on the average viewer/reader is the same. Those who disagree with the bias become even more polarized and will reject the info out of hand. Those who agree won't really change anything about their viewpoints. When the falsehood being told is so blatant that it becomes res ipsa loquitur, then people who previously agreed with the source will begin to question not only that source, but other similar sources.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Also, citation needed on your claim that people pretend they were raped in order to get medicaid funding for an abortion. That strikes me as utterly bizarre and offensive, personally - how often does this happen, do you think?

In the context of total number of abortions, I'd say it is not very often. In terms of is there a claim of rape made as the primary rationale for abortion more often than it is actually the cause, I would say that is hard to tell because the numbers are all over the board. It may be that rape is cited as the reason 2-3 times more often than is the case, or it may be that only 1/3 of pregnancies caused by rape are actually aborted.

I'm not saying the following are authoritative sources, but they illustrate some of the problems trying to pinpoint how often rape is falsely cited as the rationale:

https://www.ewtn.com/library/prolenc/encyc079.htm

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

"

DalaiLama wrote:

What I am saying is no different than Grinding Gear Games trying to grow its base of players.

wot

Dinner with President Trump:

http://ijr.com/2017/02/810965-trump-ditched-the-press-to-have-dinner-heres-how-the-president-acts-when-no-one-is-watching/

"

11:01 PM: Nigel Farage can be found wandering the lobby of the hotel with a large glass of red wine. His teeth are wine-stained, and the British politician is happily swaying and speaking with anyone who approaches him. I ask what it is like to come to the United States and have the President ask you to dinner. Farage says:

“Well it's really quite wonderful. But as I've gotten to know Donald, it really just does not surprise me. You know what amazes me about your President? He is a regular bloke. Truly. Just a normal chap. Upstairs at dinner, he spoke to the table like any regular guy out to dine with friends and family. There is no pretension at all.”

I pressed Farage for further details on what the president spoke about at dinner, and the Brexit leader just laughed and said it was nothing that interesting, with a smirk and a wink.

Also:

"

The President ordered a well-done steak. An aged New York strip. He ate it with catsup as he always does.

Catsup? On steak? The cad! =^[.]~=

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

So we should take him on his word? Look at what he's calling "fake news" - the fucking New York Times. That's no fake news. That's a long-running and extremely respectable newspaper with over a hundred pulitzers to its name.

The NYT has had a few scandals, including some plagiarism.

I'm sure they have. They've been putting out daily newspapers since the 1800s. Nobody is perfect, and expecting perfection from your news sources is a good way to not have news sources.

"

If we could so a series of lie detector tests on lots of journalists - with the question being asked:

If you knew you could get Trump impeached from office by public promoting one single lie as truthful news, would you do it?

What do you think the answers would be, and what do you think the lie detector would tell us the answers really are?

I think this is kind of ridiculous speculation, honestly, which has next to nothing to do with what's actually going on. The news networks don't have to make shit up about Trump. There's more than enough bad shit there. However, it is convenient to be able to shove said networks aside, to ignore them, to pretend they're biased and "fake news", regardless of how legitimate they are. Which is exactly what Trump wants. Washington Post, New York Times... These are investigative newspapers. I kinda wonder what would have happened if attitudes like this had dominated back during the Nixon administration. "Watergate? That's fake news!" It's nonsense.

"

Far too many people have grown up thinking that whatever version of the truth they have been taught is the only possible answer, and that beating the other side is more important than working together towards a solution.

Whether the NYT is viewed as mostly fake, occasionally fake or just heavily biased, the effect on the average viewer/reader is the same. Those who disagree with the bias become even more polarized and will reject the info out of hand. Those who agree won't really change anything about their viewpoints. When the falsehood being told is so blatant that it becomes res ipsa loquitur, then people who previously agreed with the source will begin to question not only that source, but other similar sources.

And there is nothing in the New York Times which justifies any of this. I can think of news sources this does apply to, on the left and right, but the ones on the right are still very much being allowed into Trump's press conferences.

LOL NYT pushed us into 3 wars (that I now of) on anonymous sources (yellow cake from niger, aluminum tubes etc). one costed like 2-6 trillion depending who you ask. Not to mention 2-3 million muslims dead. (and now they are acting concerned about refugee status of muslims, dont make me laugh)

FAKE NEWS is what their name should be.

Along with Deep state apparatus.

Along with Operation Mockingbird never ended.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

LOL NTY pulsed us into 3 wars (that I now of) on anonymous sources (yellow cake from niger, aluminum tubes etc). one costed like 2-6 trillion depending who you ask. Not to mention 2-3 million muslims dead.

FAKE NEWS is what their name should be.

Why would one keep harping on Liberal FAKE NEWS? It is disingenuous. Conservatives did the same.

The NYT, like virtually every news source in the run-up to the Iraq war, put too much credence on named Iraqi sources whose intel was false. And you know what? They publicly ripped off their shirt and whipped themselves over it. So did the Washington Post. You wouldn't expect the same from a fake or crap news outlet. Anyone wanna guess on which major cable network never apologized for its role in pushing us towards Iraq, and indeed, spread false and misleading stories about the war on terror long after it became apparent that something smelled fishy? I'll give you a hint - that news organization has yet to be excluded from a Trump press conference.

"

deathflower wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

LOL NTY pulsed us into 3 wars (that I now of) on anonymous sources (yellow cake from niger, aluminum tubes etc). one costed like 2-6 trillion depending who you ask. Not to mention 2-3 million muslims dead.

FAKE NEWS is what their name should be.

Why would one keep harping on Liberal FAKE NEWS? It is disingenuous. Conservatives did the same.

First of all NYT is not liberal. It's establishment. Deep state. Owned by billionaires to serve billionaires. Thats why you never see exposes about real human suffering (homeless, yemeni starvation going on right now, etc). Second Thanks toClinton for making them all this way, even Fox, with "deregulation" in his term were there was 50 major media company to 6 today. Like he did for bank he did for media.