ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Turtledove wrote:

Do you deny that Trump lies very often, far more often than a normal person or even other politicians?

Honestly i find this fascinating, because people call it "lying" but it's so obvious that one can't really call it an efficient lie.

What i mean with that is that most politicians are actually good liars, while trump is obviously not good at it by anybody's standards.

Not sure if that makes sense, but the fact you can tell he is lying so upfrontly almost negates the fact he is "attempting it".

I'm pretty convinced that's one of the primary reasons people voted for him.

If hilary speaks you don't know who she is protecting or passing words for, but with trump it's in your face.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Turtledove wrote:

A few pages back I posted a link to an article about a poll taken that indicated that even Trump supporters don't believe many of his lies that he repeats very often. The fun thing about it is that the reader can take a short questionnaire that would indicate whether you believe more of his lies than the average Trump supporter.

He's not lying, he's exaggerating to make a point. Without TDS it's easy to understand that. With TDS, you count every "lie" and are smug about it like that Jeff Bezos fake news rag.

So now that the Russia hoax fell threw it's he lies too much = grasping at straws since politicians are bound by barriers of that they want vs. what they can do.

Once Trump is reelected I look forward to more liberal tears.

"

RPGlitch wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

There is plenty of evidence that the Trump campaign was in a conspiracy with the Russians.

Well, the problem is evidence doesn't mean something is true.

There is plenty evidence we didn't land on the moon, that evolution didn't happen, or that aliens abducted people.

Hoaxes have plenty of evidence, but the reason why we call them a hoax, is because they make the wrong conclusions, based on their evidence.

In this case, Manafort, Flinn, and Cohen, all were charged with crimes unrelated to collusion. Yet, did you hear that in the news? Yeah, I doubt it.

There was always been insufficient proof of Trump-Russia, but a mountain of opinions about Trump's connections to Putin. And it was an opinion, because the link to Trump and Russia in every case turned out to be false.

I.E.

Trump Tower Meeting possibly linking Trump to Russia? Yeah, nothing came out of that one. They might have met someone, but they didn't really? And that was the end of it. That's what you call misleading people with evidence.

"

Mueller apparently found the evidence insufficient to prove conspiracy. I say apparently because we haven't actually seen the Mueller report yet, but based on Barr's statements, I believe that conspiracy was not proven in the investigation.

Okay, then. That's fair.

At least you didn't say, Mueller just wasn't good enough and in your hearts of hearts you knew Trump was guilty, lol.

No one has been harder on Russia since Reagan. Thats just facts ppl choose to ignore because doesnt fit narrative lying MSM is feeding. Trump gave Ukraine Javelin missiles to take out Russian tanks which Obama refused. Trump Kicked out 100 "diplomats" aka spies. Trump bombed Putins ally Assad twice which Obama refused... Trump nixed Short range missle treaty which Russia cheat on.. again all previous presidents refused to scared of Russia.

It's like actions are opposite world with Democratic narrative which is why I said all along this Russia hoax investigation was hot air

Actions not words is what matters.

"

Turtledove wrote:

There's another big word in there "subjective".

Subjective: based upon a person's feelings or intuition, not upon observation or reasoning;

Evidence: Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion.

Recently my 3rd grader introduced me to this P.I.E. concept his teacher is using for homework. The first "question" of his reading assignments is to say whether a passage he just read was intending to persuade, inform, or entertain; that is, whether it was subjective nonfiction, objective nonfiction, or fiction. And I really have a problem with that "question," because there is no valid line distinguishing the informative from the persuasive.

Everything intending to "inform" you is attempting to persuade you, or is operating under the assumption that you're already persuaded. There's no such thing as a fact in words; the words of the reporter are an attempt to persuade you of a thing they claim actually happened. There is no such thing as a conclusion that is based purely upon observation, because reasoning itself invokes a person's feelings and intuitions. There is no guarantee that a person who wants to be reason will be inherently objective or rational, and there's a distinct possibility that they will arrive at a biased conclusion and not even necessarily realize it.

The only objectivity that exists in this world is in sensory perception; what you have seen, you cannot unsee. Everything that follows from that, and I do mean everything, is to some degree subjective — to include every conclusion of the science of physics. Even the scientific process itself merely pits guesses against the best attempts to experimentally disprove them, as imagination and thoroughness will permit; science does not prove hypotheses so much as subjectively decide it's tired of repeated attempts to disprove them. Science itself is inherently subjective.

Even what we decide to remember is subjective. What has been seen cannot be unseen, but it can perhaps be forgotten. Which in many contexts is essentially the same thing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an enemy of subjectivity too. I believe the shortest possible (collections of) leaps of faith are the best kinds — or in other words, I worship Occam's Razor. But one thing I always remember is that I still make leaps of faith, short as I try to keep them, that I am not a faithless creature even if I'd like to be. No human is. If subjectivity is sin, then the doctrine of Original Sin applies, for we all do it. And I feel you and many others are fooling yourselves most viciously by pretending that you are free from this "sin," that you have the sacred truths, that you operate wholly upon reason and evidence. You are not, and you do not.

You don't know it's true; you believe what you've been told. As, to some extent, we all do.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

.

Welcome back!

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

*Pops in*

Hey guys, what's going on in here?

*Sees seemingly earnest defense of Trump's wind turbine comments*

Welp, that's enough PoE Off Topic for another year.

I mean christ, there's epistemic charity, but we do know that Trump has long-standing beef with wind turbines (specifically ones off the coast of his Scottish golf resort), right?

Few people want a wind power farm in their backyard. Wealthy people and politicians on both sides of the political spectrum have fought against them when they even have to see them from their property.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

And while you're here, DalaiLama, care to defend Trump's comments about Ozone

Gravity. If the Earth's atmosphere followed Dalton and Boyle's ideal gas laws, then, yes, CFCs would be mixed in with the ozone and destroying it. If the Earth's atmosphere followed ideal gas laws, then our air would have expanded and filled all of the solar system, and we would be living in a vacuum. Gravity (along with temperature and winds) changes how various components of the air are mixed, and where they reside.

Maybe you've noticed that denser objects sink in a fluid or how a helium balloon rises? If you let that helium gas out of the balloon, how long will it remain in the Earth's atmosphere? Will it eventually escape or be trapped by gravity?

If someone had a balloon filled with chlorine gas would it float up into the air or sink? If you released the chlorine gas would it float up into the stratosphere or sink and cling to the ground?

What do you think the weight of CFC gases are? I'll give you a hint - if you heated the CFCs quite a bit and released them from a airplane at standard cruising altitudes, then they would have a chance of climbing into the upper troposphere and mixing with the lower stratosphere where they could destroy ozone. Trace amounts can occur of course, but not in the quantities necessary to cause the dramatic change in the ozone.

Updrafts/wind/heat can carry some suspended particles and gases upwards of course, but there's a limit based on how much energy is contained. There's a reason clouds hit a wall when trying to expand ever upwards into the Tropopause. CFCs aren't magically immune from the same physics.



CFCs are insoluble, so they won't be pulled out by rain, which gives them a longer time in the air. Oxidizers such as ozone, hydroxyl or nitrate radicals will break down CFCs. If these factors alone were solely responsible, and we had no new anthropogenic CFC productions scientists would expect almost ALL of the CFCs to be removed by 80 years. (Now you know how NASA got their 80 year plus number).

We would expect 30+ years after the Montreal Protocol was passed in 1987 (and over 20 years since production essentially ceased in 1994) to see some very noticeable reductions. Maybe not 20/80 = 25% reductions, but substantial.

Even NASA states this is the case -
"Changes in the ozone hole now are not significantly driven by changes in CFCs, but instead driven by year-to-year changes in weather in the stratosphere,” said NASA scientist Pawan Bhartia, who in 1985 was the first researcher to present satellite data showing the Antarctic ozone hole."

Yet, if anthropogenic CFCs were a major cause in the ozone hole, we should have seen a major healing of the ozone hole. This isn't what we are seeing.



How do we explain the discrepancy between the failed predictions of scare mongering scientists and actual data?

Here's how NASA scientist Pawan Bhartia explained it
“Like two snowflakes, two ozone holes are never alike.”

That's all the science, I need. NASA convinced me again.

"

Boem wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Do you deny that Trump lies very often, far more often than a normal person or even other politicians?

Honestly i find this fascinating, because people call it "lying" but it's so obvious that one can't really call it an efficient lie.

What i mean with that is that most politicians are actually good liars, while trump is obviously not good at it by anybody's standards.

Not sure if that makes sense, but the fact you can tell he is lying so upfrontly almost negates the fact he is "attempting it".

I'm pretty convinced that's one of the primary reasons people voted for him.

If hilary speaks you don't know who she is protecting or passing words for, but with trump it's in your face.

Peace,

-Boem-

His lie that Obama was not born in the USA, birtherism, fooled many people, as just one example.

"

Turtledove wrote:

His lie that Obama was not born in the USA, birtherism, fooled many people, as just one example.

Do you mean the Birth Certificate question first raised by an opponent when Obama was running for Senate in Illinois, and then revitalized by Hillary's team during her run against him for the democratic nomination?

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/was-hillary-clinton-the-original-birther/

Obama could have easily squelched the entire thing by ordering the release of his birth certificate in the beginning, and the release of the long form later on.

Like Trump resisting releasing his tax forms, Obama resisted, and in both cases each president has taken criticism and generated skepticism because of it.

Trump had fun with the skepticism.



Obama had fun traveling to 57 of the 50 US States (only had one left to visit) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

His lie that Obama was not born in the USA, birtherism, fooled many people, as just one example.

Do you mean the Birth Certificate question first raised by an opponent when Obama was running for Senate in Illinois, and then revitalized by Hillary's team during her run against him for the democratic nomination?

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/was-hillary-clinton-the-original-birther/

Did you read what you linked?

"

It is certainly interesting, and perhaps historically and politically relevant, that “birther” advocacy may have originated with supporters of Hillary Clinton — especially since many view it as an exclusively right-wing movement. But whether those theories were advocated by Clinton and/or her campaign or simply by Clinton “supporters” is an important distinction. Candidates are expected to be held accountable for the actions of their campaigns. Neither Cruz nor Trump, whose campaign did not respond to our request for backup material, provides any compelling evidence that either Clinton or her campaign had anything to do with starting the so-called birther movement.

Also just because Trump didn't start the lie doesn't negate the fact that he was one of the biggest and most vocal proponents of it, and I'm sure he did fool many people by repeating it.