• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trump Presidency 14

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trump Tweets

A brave former fighter jet pilot and warrior, Senator Martha McSally of Arizona has done an outstanding job in D.C., and is fully supportive of our agenda – she is with us all the way....

....Martha is strong on Crime and Borders, the 2nd Amendment, and loves our Military and Vets. She has my Complete and Total Endorsement!

Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina has really stepped up to the plate. Thom is tough on Crime, Strong on the Border and fights hard against Illegal Immigration. He loves our Military, our Vets and our great Second Amendment. I give Thom my Full and Total Endorsement!
 
Trump Tweets

A brave former fighter jet pilot and warrior, Senator Martha McSally of Arizona has done an outstanding job in D.C., and is fully supportive of our agenda – she is with us all the way....

....Martha is strong on Crime and Borders, the 2nd Amendment, and loves our Military and Vets. She has my Complete and Total Endorsement!

Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina has really stepped up to the plate. Thom is tough on Crime, Strong on the Border and fights hard against Illegal Immigration. He loves our Military, our Vets and our great Second Amendment. I give Thom my Full and Total Endorsement!
 
plague311 said:
The **** does that mean? Pretty sure the methodology of "not telling the truth" has been the same since the words had a clear definition.



Are you denying that what I said is the truth? Wow. I know I'd be embarrassed.
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm denying - in the sense of a null hypothesis - that what you said is the truth.

Who counted the lies? How did they choose which statements to evaluate? What rules did they apply, to make their evaluation? Who else did they apply their method to? What controls did they have, against sampling error, bias, etc.?

You probably should be embarrassed.
 
Cabbage said:
Dude, it wasn't even relevant to what Norman Alexander was saying. It was nothing but tu quoque. Clearly you don't even know what "special pleading" even means; it's just a BS defense you whip out over and over again because you have nothing better to contribute.



Disagree? Point out the precise manner in which that post you were responding to was Special Pleading: Argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.



This oughta be fun!
Click to expand...
Fair points. It was a bad argument. I concede it.

Sorry if it wasn't as fun as you hoped.
 
Stacyhs said:
Politics swings like a pendulum. It goes too far one way, it reacts by going too far in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

But there is a flaw with the analogy: If one can move the pendulum’s pivot point then the amplitude of the pendulum can remain constant but the pendulum will never return to the point it was previously.

Playing with the Overton Window really changes the where the pendulum swings.
 
theprestige said:
I'm not going to judge him more poorly than Obama, for doing the same kind of stuff Obama did.
Click to expand...
Trump speaks through his larynx. Obama spoke through his larynx. You're not going to judge Trump on what he says and has said when it's the same kind of stuff Obama did. You, know, saying stuff. Stuff like "Merry Christmas". Which is just the same kind of stuff as "Obama never said Merry Christmas". It's stuff said. Through the larynx.
 
CapelDodger said:
Trump speaks through his larynx. Obama spoke through his larynx. You're not going to judge Trump on what he says and has said when it's the same kind of stuff Obama did. You, know, saying stuff. Stuff like "Merry Christmas". Which is just the same kind of stuff as "Obama never said Merry Christmas". It's stuff said. Through the larynx.
Click to expand...

And yet when Trump speaks through his larynx, people carry on like larynx speaking is an unprecedented evil that will destroy the world.
 
theprestige said:
Who counted them? How did they decide which statements to evaluate? What rules did they apply in the evaluation? How did they control for sampling error, bias, etc.? How many other politicians have been evaluated with the same methodology and controls?
Click to expand...

Didn't you ever see the gumball jars on CNN that they used to keep track? I don't even know if they've used them since oh, about Lie #7000, I think.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
A Stephanie Grisham is the new WH spokesperson. Why anyone would want that job is beyond me.
Click to expand...
She probably didn't want it either. As far as we know, she was very happy staying out of the WH madhouse by working for Melanie. Not that she isn't an ambitious exec.

What's the bet someone put her name in the hat without her knowing as a form of revenge?
 
theprestige said:
Who counted them? How did they decide which statements to evaluate? What rules did they apply in the evaluation? How did they control for sampling error, bias, etc.? How many other politicians have been evaluated with the same methodology and controls?
Click to expand...

Wow, talk about a piss-poor argument.

"The fence is red."
"I can see it's blue"
"Nope it's red, it's your research method.":rolleyes:


Have you forgotten there's a Tweet for everything Trump says in which he says the opposite? Maybe you forgot the hundreds of times Trump contradicted himself on video? The man contradicts himself hours after saying something.

Why can you not concede the obvious? Do you think you are making a valid argument that it's bias and methodology?

Or are you complaining maybe it's only 2,000 lies, not 9,000? Like that matters.
 
Paul2 said:
Womens' biological differences only affect unit effectiveness if they are given duties that they cannot perform. The larger question is whether women should be prohibited from serving in the armed forces altogether.

One could form a coherent policy that said that anyone - man, woman, trans, black, white, whatever - can serve in the armed forces, but only be assigned to duties for which they are capable of fulfilling to some defined standard.

Equal protection under law does require trans folk to be able to serve in the military. What part of that is not clear?

And, why would we want to prohibit the benefits we can receive from *anyone* who wants to serve and is able to. You never know who might make a great contribution, it could be a man, a woman, a trans, a black, a white, etc. etc. etc.
Click to expand...
The only questions required to be answered by military recruits are: Will you commit to serve for the duration? Will you follow orders? Can you perform all the tasks required of you? Will you remain loyal and honorable to your country?

Can't see as how being male, female, gay, straight, LGBTQI or undecided has much to do with this. A soldier, sailor, airman or marine can be any of those.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Wow, talk about a piss-poor argument.

"The fence is red."
"I can see it's blue"
"Nope it's red, it's your research method.":rolleyes:


Have you forgotten there's a Tweet for everything Trump says in which he says the opposite? Maybe you forgot the hundreds of times Trump contradicted himself on video? The man contradicts himself hours after saying something.

Why can you not concede the obvious? Do you think you are making a valid argument that it's bias and methodology?

Or are you complaining maybe it's only 2,000 lies, not 9,000? Like that matters.
Click to expand...

The number of things matters a lot to a claim about the number of things. How did you determine the number of things?

---

Your red fence analogy is terrible, by the way. Let's stick to how you counted the number of things.
 
Norman Alexander said:
She probably didn't want it either. As far as we know, she was very happy staying out of the WH madhouse by working for Melanie. Not that she isn't an ambitious exec.

What's the bet someone put her name in the hat without her knowing as a form of revenge?
Click to expand...

Naaah. Donnie's a scavenger. His own choices for appointments are so poor that he hovers over other offices in the administration to find others' appointees who are doing a credible job. He tried to poach Pence's CoS and got told to go suck an egg. (Which is kinda a shame because watching him fail would've been fun.) Now he needs another stooge so he thinks, "Hey, Melania's spokesperson does pretty good, we'll pick her. If Mel objects, I'll put tariffs on her parents!"

Faring well as Melania's frontperson requires only that you try to spin some of her Chico Escuela moments into coherency. It's a once-a-week job and you're facing a press corps of House and Garden, Fashion Weekly and TV Guide.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You mean counting documented lies?
Click to expand...
Tell you what: You point me to the document that lists all his lies, and I'll count them myself. If it's a reasonably well-formatted document, it shouldn't take more than a few minutes, even if the lies number in the tens of thousands.

That leaves us plenty of time to compare Trump's document to the documents produced for other recent presidents, and to discuss the methodology used to produce these documents.

: rolleyes :
Click to expand...

Aw yeah rolleyes! Let's do this!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom