ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

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/

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

taxes are not required. natural born is.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

taxes are not required. natural born is.

Except it isn't. See Ted Cruz being born in Canada.

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

taxes are not required. natural born is.

Except it isn't. See Ted Cruz being born in Canada.

One is a fair issue - other is BS. They are not alike at all like he said.

It's like saying you need to run a 4.3 40 yard dash for president to show taxes.

I wonder what media will do now. They spent better part of year telling deadbeats, probably on gov subsistence payments, Trump's end was nigh. Now that petered out they need something to keep them entertained.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

I wonder what media will do now. They spent better part of year telling deadbeats, probably on gov subsistence payments, Trump's end was nigh. Now that petered out they need something to keep them entertained.

Well the're starting to turn on their candidates that aren't in the "woke" branch of the DNC.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

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

Something was missing from the model that was used to make those predictions. That doesn't mean it wasn't the best information available at the time.

Barry is in my city right now. Apparently he mentioned himself 467 times in his speech. New record lmao.

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

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

Something was missing from the model that was used to make those predictions. That doesn't mean it wasn't the best information available at the time.

They are still using it. I don't doubt the sincerity of the vast majority of the scientists. I don't doubt much of their data. It is when they let their personal/political beliefs determine the interpretation of the data that I shake my head.

I understand how it comes about. A few influential people make a call, and others start to go along to get along. Imagine if GGG planned some new skill tree changes that were terrible, and one GGG employee started blasting Chris on the forum? Science, of course isn't a company or political, except when it is and has become that way.

NASA is no exception. The Challenger disaster didn't need to happen. They were advised by their own engineers that they shouldn't launch when they did and that certain components were well past their specced times and needed to be reinspected and/or replaced. They were told their would be catastrophic failure if they continued.

The leaders at NASA listened to them and decided the delay to inspect and replace would be too great and would lose them support in Congress. For purely political reasons, they decided to go ahead and launch. I know some of the people involved, and that's about as much detail as I will give on it. The people I know are honest and had long successful careers at NASA, and it wasn't a case of getting in trouble with the upper brass at all.

Scientists are human - they make mistakes, and I won't hold that against them. Intentionally changing the interpretation of the science or hiding data, especially when the cost is human lives, I will continue to argue against.

Reducing pollutants is always a good idea. Balancing how and when we do it with the other factors is equally important.

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

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

Something was missing from the model that was used to make those predictions. That doesn't mean it wasn't the best information available at the time.

This is naive. The strongest bias is news isn't necessarily left-wing or right-wing, it is "if it bleeds it leads." (If you haven't seen Nightcrawler yet, please do so.) A climate prediction that everything will remain stable for the next few decades — even if it forecasts a slowly progressing doom a century or two from now — is boring. It's never going to get the fame and attention — and dollars — that doomsaying will. If you think climatologists haven't figured this out, and are sorely tempted to compromise their intellectual honesty in exchange for money and glory, you are solely mistaken.

Regardless of whether a particular media source has a right-bias or a left-bias, both sides are biased towards alarmism. Even Trump does this; although I wouldn't say the issues on the US border are unimportant, they are not as critical as Trump makes them out to be, by a long shot. Defenders of Trump point out that all kinds of things of similar importance have been formally declared "national emergencies" in the past, but that just shows how previous administrations have held a similar bias towards alarmism. All sides exaggerate the severity of issues and show the worst in order to better sell their agendas. It's just business as usual.

There's very little room these days for the once-popular, sensible default opinion that a thing can be a problem worthy of serious consideration and concern, without it being a crisis that will quickly spell our doom if not addressed with reckless haste.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

This is naive. The strongest bias is news isn't necessarily left-wing or right-wing, it is "if it bleeds it leads." (If you haven't seen Nightcrawler yet, please do so.) A climate prediction that everything will remain stable for the next few decades — even if it forecasts a slowly progressing doom a century or two from now — is boring. It's never going to get the fame and attention — and dollars — that doomsaying will. If you think climatologists haven't figured this out, and are sorely tempted to compromise their intellectual honesty in exchange for money and glory, you are solely mistaken.

Regardless of whether a particular media source has a right-bias or a left-bias, both sides are biased towards alarmism. Even Trump does this; although I wouldn't say the issues on the US border are unimportant, they are not as critical as Trump makes them out to be, by a long shot. Defenders of Trump point out that all kinds of things of similar importance have been formally declared "national emergencies" in the past, but that just shows how previous administrations have held a similar bias towards alarmism. All sides exaggerate the severity of issues and show the worst in order to better sell their agendas. It's just business as usual.

There's very little room these days for the once-popular, sensible default opinion that a thing can be a problem worthy of serious consideration and concern, without it being a crisis that will quickly spell our doom if not addressed with reckless haste.

Trump would get be less scrutinized if he stop tweeting hyperboles or radical statements but he wouldn't since he would get less publicity and in effect less influence. You can't have it both ways.

Politics is about the power and capacity of individuals to influence the behaviour of others to get you what you want. If that is not what they are doing, it would be counterintuitive.