Let's make America smart again

[Belz...]

So maybe they are the ones to listen to if you want to make America smart again.

It doesn't follow that success means one is correct.

Your confidence in this opinion is grossly misplaced.

Well, you tell me: you watch a candidate say nonsensical, stupid, bigoted things, make promises that cannot possibly be held, accuse the establishment of being the problem when he himself is part of it, and lie through his teeth almost constantly, and you still vote for him?

You've either been conned or you don't care.

 

[Belz...]

The fact that you offered reasons doesn't change the fact that you don't accept alternate possibilities.

Again, that I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't accept alternate possibilities. And second, why don't you help out and provide them? So far the alternate possibilities offered only highlight what we've been saying.

Because that presumption doesn't provide us with the most likely way to obtain the truth.

As opposed to gut feelings?

But why on earth would we need a system designed to preserve liberties in scenarios where liberties are never at risk?

You don't think that strong public opinion on a criminal accusation can't have an impact on civil liberties?

 

[The Shrike]

I want the wall to be built.

Okay, so your position is that a critical examination of the current US job market indicates that some sort of wall on our southern border - combined of course with deportation of millions of people across that border - would (1) significantly reduce illegal immigration into the US, and (2) significantly boost the US economy through the employment of a higher percentage of US citizens?

[I'd prefer to keep discussion on this topic in this thread, as an example of an important issue that didn't receive nearly enough intelligent attention - from either side - during our endless campaign.]

 

[caveman1917]

Well, you tell me: you watch a candidate say nonsensical, stupid, bigoted things, make promises that cannot possibly be held, accuse the establishment of being the problem when he himself is part of it, and lie through his teeth almost constantly, and you still vote for him?

The parts which remain apply equally to Clinton. Even the strike-through parts might be, but I don't know about those. But then for Clinton we can add "slaughters what she considers lower-humans who live outside the US by the tens of thousands."

If you're going to ask a question like that then at least make sure that you use examples which actually differentiate the candidate from the other candidates. Otherwise you're really just arguing for not voting at all - which I would support - but I'm sure that's not what you're intending to argue.

 

[Belz...]

The parts which remain apply equally to Clinton.

Absolutely not. How does anything she's said compare in stupidity with his claims? Or in bigoted...ness? And as for lying we know that he lies a lot more than her.

Even the strike-through parts might be, but I don't know about those. But then for Clinton we can add "slaughters what she considers lower-humans who live outside the US by the tens of thousands."

What the hell are you babbling about?

 

[caveman1917]

Absolutely not.

Absolutely yes.

How does anything she's said compare in stupidity with his claims? Or in bigoted...ness?

She considers Americans to be superior over non-Americans. Objectively her bigotry is much worse than Trump's. Trump's is domestic, white Americans are superior over POC Americans, whereas hers is international, Americans are superior over non-Americans. But there are many more non-Americans in the world than POC Americans, so she defines a lot more people as inferior than Trump.

And as for lying we know that he lies a lot more than her.

Who are "we" and how have "you" gained this particular piece of knowledge?

What the hell are you babbling about?

Iraq, Haiti, Libya, ... And those are only her direct "go out and literally kill the inferior people", that's not even accounting for her slightly less direct economic methods designed to ravage other countries and leading to even larger numbers of deaths, such as Mexico (NAFTA), ...

 

[caveman1917]

Even if Trump really tried everything he could to go after Mexicans, with a wall and deportation of immigrants, he would never be able to reach up to Clinton's level of death and misery inflicted upon them through NAFTA.

 

[xjx388]

Well, you tell me: you watch a candidate say nonsensical, stupid, bigoted things, make promises that cannot possibly be held, accuse the establishment of being the problem when he himself is part of it, and lie through his teeth almost constantly, and you still vote for him?

You've either been conned or you don't care.

Why are those the only two choices? Why not: "Trump was a deeply flawed candidate and I'm not ok with his rhetoric, but at least with him things will move towards the outcomes I want. He won't actually be able to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it but he can make improvements to border security. He can't actually round up all the illegals in America and deport them but he can strengthen our immigration policy. He may not be able to repeal and replace ACA but he isn't going to move toward single-payer either. In any case, a vote for Clinton ensures that the country will move toward outcomes I don't want, such as single-payer, lax immigration, etc."

Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and vote anyway.

 

[Ziggurat]

Again, that I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't accept alternate possibilities.

True. But that's not why I said you don't accept alternate possibilities.

And second, why don't you help out and provide them? So far the alternate possibilities offered only highlight what we've been saying.

Because it's already been done to death.

As opposed to gut feelings?

This sort of nonsense is why I don't take you seriously. There's more than one standard used for decisions, even in courts of law (which this isn't). It isn't binary. For example, there's also the preponderance of evidence standard. We don't use it for criminal trials, but it's perfectly acceptable in other contexts. Either you're ignorant of such basic concepts as these other standards, in which case why am I even talking to you, or you know about such alternative standards but choose to pretend they don't exist, in which case why am I even talking to you.

And right now, I admit I'm stumped.

You don't think that strong public opinion on a criminal accusation can't have an impact on civil liberties?

First, again, why are you confining yourself only to the question of criminality? The issue is larger than that. Second, no, I don't think anything we say here will have any impact on civil liberties. Do you?

 

[caveman1917]

Okay, so your position is that a critical examination of the current US job market indicates that some sort of wall on our southern border - combined of course with deportation of millions of people across that border - would (1) significantly reduce illegal immigration into the US, and (2) significantly boost the US economy through the employment of a higher percentage of US citizens?

[I'd prefer to keep discussion on this topic in this thread, as an example of an important issue that didn't receive nearly enough intelligent attention - from either side - during our endless campaign.]

Obama has deported more people than any other president in US history. But liberals don't care about that, do they?

Another nice example of what US liberalism is really like. They don't give a crap about people being deported or anything, while Obama's deportation machine is running full speed they'd be singing "Yes we can!" in the streets while his police forces are dragging people out of their homes to deport them. They're completely fine with it just as long he doesn't employ the wrong speech or gestures while doing it, like some other candidate might.

 

[Ziggurat]

Obama has deported more people than any other president in US history.

No he hasn't. Rather, he changed what was labelled as "deported" to make it look like he did.

You've been had.

 

[Navigator]

I would say yes. America sent people to the freaking moon.

Rocket Science requires smart people.

Since the OP comes from a Neil DeGrasse Tyson quote, I think a much better idea from him is to put money back into space.
He has argued frequently that a flagship project, like putting people on the moon does more to inspire people to take up scientific and engineering careers than anything else. A position I'd agree with. How many kids would watch live pictures of a Mars landing and think "That's amazing, I want to do that!"

But is that a smart thing to be doing? Isn't it smarter to invest that money onto projects on Earth (in America) which makes sure not one person grows up in poverty and all have the opportunity to increase their critical thinking and overall intelligence?

If you want to make your country smarter, then you need to increase to ratio of smart people to dumb people. I think one of the best ways to do that is to inspire people to want to become smart in the first place.

Not everyone is born with smarts of course and that shouldn't be an issue. The smart thing to do would be to create an environment where these 'dumb' folk are not taken advantage of through the present systems of disparity, or seen to be a problem in relation to 'smart' people.

We live in a world where more people are inspired to be great at sports, or great at trading stocks, or great at lawyering, because that's where the money is.

Yes, but ultimately is it smart to follow the money when in doing so you have to have poor or dumb people who make you rich?

It would be awesome to live in a world where a top engineer or astrophysicist got similar money and recognition as top footballers or bankers.

So ask yourself (use your smarts) "why is it that bankers and sports-persons get so much reward? Is the answer 'smart'?

While top scientists might be all dreamy about getting off the planet and exploring, it is not the best thing at all to be investing ones 'smarts' into.

It is more probably the symptom of wanting to escape the present madness created by the systems of disparity which intelligent people have developed in order to feed their greed....intelligent but not very smart.

 

[caveman1917]

No he hasn't. Rather, he changed what was labelled as "deported" to make it look like he did.

You've been had.

Snopes says yes, where "deported" means "removed from the US by immigration authorities".

 

[Belz...]

Absolutely yes.

That's not an argument. I gave you an argument why it wasn't the case.

She considers Americans to be superior over non-Americans. Objectively her bigotry is much worse than Trump's. Trump's is domestic, white Americans are superior over POC Americans, whereas hers is international, Americans are superior over non-Americans.

1) demonstrate the highlighted claim.

2) you are arbitrarily declaring one to be worse than the other, and in so doing have worded Trump's beliefs dishonestly. Trump's isn't domestic. A white racist considers whites to be better than non-whites, everywhere.

But there are many more non-Americans in the world than POC Americans, so she defines a lot more people as inferior than Trump.

That is a stupid metric.

Who are "we" and how have "you" gained this particular piece of knowledge?

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

71% of Trump's checked statements were lies. Hillary's record is a lot better. Ergo she is the lesser liar.

Iraq, Haiti, Libya, ... And those are only her direct "go out and literally kill the inferior people"

Quote her or admit that this is a fabrication.

that's not even accounting for her slightly less direct economic methods designed to ravage other countries and leading to even larger numbers of deaths, such as Mexico (NAFTA), ...

Designed to? Again, evidence please.

 

[Belz...]

Why are those the only two choices? Why not: "Trump was a deeply flawed candidate and I'm not ok with his rhetoric, but at least with him things will move towards the outcomes I want. He won't actually be able to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it but he can make improvements to border security. He can't actually round up all the illegals in America and deport them but he can strengthen our immigration policy. He may not be able to repeal and replace ACA but he isn't going to move toward single-payer either. In any case, a vote for Clinton ensures that the country will move toward outcomes I don't want, such as single-payer, lax immigration, etc."

Yeah, that was the second choice: they didn't care.

This sort of nonsense is why I don't take you seriously.

YOU are arguing against presumption of innocence. The only alternative is to either assume guilt or go with your guts. It's the consequence of the thing YOU are arguing for. As for preponderance of evidence, what happens if you have none? Well, you've just thrown out presumption of innocence, so what do you conclude? Whatever you feel like, is what. That's why that "dogmatic" principle is so important, and why, in my view, it should just be in the courtroom.

First, again, why are you confining yourself only to the question of criminality?

Because she's been called a criminal. I would think that criminality would be the central issue when trying to determine if it's true.

 

[Ziggurat]

YOU are arguing against presumption of innocence. The only alternative is to either assume guilt or go with your guts.

No, it isn't the only alternative. Under a preponderance of evidence standard, you don't presume anything, and you don't go with your gut either.

It's the consequence of the thing YOU are arguing for.

No, it isn't. It's a consequence of the dichotomy you're pushing. But it's a false dichotomy.

As for preponderance of evidence, what happens if you have none?

I don't know why you think that's relevant, since we aren't discussing scenarios where there is no evidence. But even supposing your hypothetical, then the obvious answer is that you simply withhold judgment. You don't conclude anything. That's certainly what we do in science.

That's why that "dogmatic" principle is so important, and why, in my view, it should just be in the courtroom.

I presume you mean "shouldn't", otherwise you've explicitly contradicted yourself. But even without contradicting yourself, you're still completely wrong, because your false dichotomy is false.

 

[caveman1917]

That's not an argument. I gave you an argument why it wasn't the case.

1) demonstrate the highlighted claim.

http://time.com/4474619/read-hillary-clinton-american-legion-speech/

2) you are arbitrarily declaring one to be worse than the other, and in so doing have worded Trump's beliefs dishonestly. Trump's isn't domestic. A white racist considers whites to be better than non-whites, everywhere.

Counting the number of people that are considered inferior by each candidate is hardly arbitrary. Got a better metric? Oh, and Trump has stated he doesn't consider non-Americans inferior, Trump's bigotry is domestic.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

71% of Trump's checked statements were lies. Hillary's record is a lot better. Ergo she is the lesser liar.

Now that is a stupid metric. If you go check Hillary's record there you'll see that most of her checked claims are of the sort "Trump says X". Easy enough to get a high score that way, just repeat what your opponent says and claim "my opponent says X", get it added to that website, and there you go - a high truth score.

Quote her or admit that this is a fabrication.

Quote what? Her support for sending Americans to go kill people in Iraq? Her support for local militias to kill people in Haiti and Libya?

Designed to? Again, evidence please.

Are you naive or something?

 

[Belz...]

I don't know why you think that's relevant, since we aren't discussing scenarios where there is no evidence.

What evidence do you think you have, and for what?

But even supposing your hypothetical, then the obvious answer is that you simply withhold judgment. You don't conclude anything. That's certainly what we do in science.

Not concluding anything means that you go with the statu quo, in this case, innocence. That's why I didn't mention preponderance of evidence before you brought it up.

I presume you mean "shouldn't", otherwise you've explicitly contradicted yourself.

You are correct. I typed too fast.

 

[Ziggurat]

Snopes says yes, where "deported" means "removed from the US by immigration authorities".

Note that Snopes never points out that the term "deport" isn't even a legal description. Why is this important? Because aside from being true, its ommission indicates that Snopes doesn't really understand the issue. Here's a more informative look:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...amned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/

"One problem is the continued use of “deportation” in virtually all media reporting. In actuality, that category has been obsolete in immigration law since 1996."

 

[Ziggurat]

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

71% of Trump's checked statements were lies. Hillary's record is a lot better. Ergo she is the lesser liar.

Do you even understand what sampling means in statistics?