GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Predictions

Post Reply
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Prediction

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 26, 2016 5:25 pm

Animavore wrote:Why do you keep going on long-winded speils about what the other politicians are at when I say something about Trump? Saying I think x about Trump doesn't mean I de facto think the opposite of the others. Stick to Trump please.
Referring to the other candidates is not beside the point -- the standard being applied can only be tested for consistency by referring to past and present candidates.

Also, I don't go on long winded speils about the other politicians. Most of my post was about Trump - for example the charitable endeavors. The fact that you say he's selfish, but I can pretty much demonstrate that he does more for others than the other candidates would seem to be very relevant in an analysis as to whether his generosity is sufficient to qualify him as a candidate for President.
Animavore wrote:
I'll consider what you said about his charitable works.
Sure, I would think so. I would expect him to act in his own interests as a business man. That's what business owner's do -- you aren't a charity, you're out to make money. And, that's a good thing. Charities, though, are also good things, and to call someone selfish because they aggressively pursue business interests rings hollow, especially if they do generously contribute to charity and philanthropy.
Animavore wrote:
When I'm talking about a lack of education in science I mean a lack of the basics. I don't think you need a degree.
Well, most people lack "the basics." I have a much greater grasp on "the basics" than the average person, because I took college level science courses -- three semesters of physics, two semesters of chemistry, Thermodynamics, Fluid Dynamics, Calculus 1 and 2 and Differential Equations. Biology. The works. That's a science education. Putting a finger up in the political wind and saying "now I support climate change because everyone says the science is settled" is not an education. And, that's all that Clinton and the others do. If Cruz thought it would help him politically, he'd be all in favor of climate change predictions and such, and if Clinton thought it would help her, she'd come down against it. Just like on gay marriage - Clinton was big-time against gay marriage until the political wind shifted, then she shifted. That doesn't indicate an "education" in anything.


Animavore wrote: I would just expect politicians to listen to and understand the experts and not buy into denialism, conspiracy theory, or psuedoscience. A politician who can't make sound decisions on matte4s and policy related to science is no politician.
Well, you have no idea that Trump can't make sound decisions on matters of policy related to science, and almost no politicians are educated and schooled in science. "listening to the experts" is not being educated in science.

And, Trump has not "bought into denialism" - you said so by citing an example that was debunked.
Animavore wrote:
Even if Trump was joking about China, and not just back-peddling, pointing out the inaction (which isn't even true, China are doing things about climate change) of other countries isn't an excuse for your own inaction.
It depends. If their inaction means that they are undercutting us economically, then the smart move might be to compel China's compliance through aggressive trade dealing and economic action. It may not mean that we get dirtier -- it may mean that we take steps to make China behave cleaner.

We can't proceed into the future one-sided on this. There are other issues besides "reduce at all costs." I mean -- if "reduce at all costs" was a reasonable position, then we'd be eliminating nonessential industries wholesale. Why do we have an auto racing industry? It's purely for entertainment, and is nothing but a green house burning and emitting pollution generator. Why aren't we limiting the sizes of houses and buildings? The size of homes is a direct contributor to climate change. Why aren't we enforcing vegetarianism, since cows are a major greenhouse gas emitter?

The answer is, of course, reasonableness, and that there is a limit to what can be accomplished and should be accomplished in combating climate change. The goal is to find a reasonable way to protect the environment without destroying our economy -- people's lives depend on the economy -- upticks in unemployment kills a measurable number of people. Inflation, too, is a key driver of inequality and kills a measurable number of people. So, you can't run headlong into climate change remedies without considering economic impact.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39276
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Prediction

Post by Animavore » Tue Apr 26, 2016 5:44 pm

Forty Two wrote: Referring to the other candidates is not beside the point -- the standard being applied can only be tested for consistency by referring to past and present candidates.
It is absolutely besides the point. It's like using an excuse that other people do it as a defence in a court of law. The judge would just tell you those other people are not on trial here.
If you refute a point or claim made against a politician you refute a point. Adding to that what everyone else is at is superfluous. It's also sort of tattletale behaviour.
Forty Two wrote: Also, I don't go on long winded speils about the other politicians. Most of my post was about Trump - for example the charitable endeavors. The fact that you say he's selfish, but I can pretty much demonstrate that he does more for others than the other candidates would seem to be very relevant in an analysis as to whether his generosity is sufficient to qualify him as a candidate for President.
Not really. You only needed to counter the argument. It wasn't necessary at all to even bring the other candidates into it.
Forty Two wrote: Well, you have no idea that Trump can't make sound decisions on matters of policy related to science, and almost no politicians are educated and schooled in science. "listening to the experts" is not being educated in science.

And, Trump has not "bought into denialism" - you said so by citing an example that was debunked.
Trump is a climate change denialist. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... lieves-in/
Forty Two wrote:
It depends. If their inaction means that they are undercutting us economically, then the smart move might be to compel China's compliance through aggressive trade dealing and economic action. It may not mean that we get dirtier -- it may mean that we take steps to make China behave cleaner.
Except China are taking action.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-clima ... SKCN0XJ1QP
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... ate-change
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/world ... .html?_r=0
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Prediction

Post by Tyrannical » Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:17 pm

Climate change is the biggest scam since astrology. Sure, all astrologers believed in astrology, but they have as relevant a scientific back ground as these climatologists. Thankfully Trump is smart enough to see its one big money scam. They dont even have the balls to call it global warming anymore. The idiot Hollywood stars still own their beachfront property, so I guess they're not actually dumb enough to really believe it.
Trump may well be the last nail in the coffin for political correctness and the existence of the Left as a moral authority, and they are scared shitless about it.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39276
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Prediction

Post by Animavore » Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:31 pm

Global warming is a result of climate change. They are not two names for the same thing. Climate change has always been in use. Hint; what does the 'CC' in 'IPCC' stand for?

But you go on believing in a mass conspiracy in which every single scientific academy in the World is involved in.

Not sure what physics has to do with political correctness, the Left or the sociopolitical affairs of humans either, you're not making sense.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Prediction

Post by Tyrannical » Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:52 pm

Yes, change is a result of change. Global warming, global cooling, global not much difference. Few if any climatologists have the background in chemistry, physics, and math to make any accurate predictions. Which neatly explains the failure of all their predictions thus far. But if you really believe in global warming, then trump is your man. His anti unfair trade practices stance will prevent China and India from bellowing record amounts of co2 into the atmosphere as their shut down factories won't need more dirty power plants to be built.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39276
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Prediction

Post by Animavore » Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:58 pm

Tyrannical wrote:Few if any climatologists have the background in chemistry, physics, and math to make any accurate predictions.
:funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :funny:

When your starting point is as completely wrong as this there's no hope for you.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Prediction

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:59 pm

Animavore wrote:
Forty Two wrote: Referring to the other candidates is not beside the point -- the standard being applied can only be tested for consistency by referring to past and present candidates.
It is absolutely besides the point. It's like using an excuse that other people do it as a defence in a court of law.
It is a defense in a court of law. If the authorities are singling out one person for application of a standard not generally applied, then it is by all means a defense.

To say that person X is disqualified because of Y, but Y doesn't disqualify persons A, B or C, and has never been used as a qualifier for other persons, tends to show that the asserted qualification is not really a qualification for office.
Animavore wrote:
The judge would just tell you those other people are not on trial here.
That depends. If the defendant is being singled out for special treatment, then there is an equal protection and due process of law issue. The prosecutor doesn't get to apply one standard to Animavore which is more stringent than the standard applied generally. If Animavore can demonstrate that he is being given more draconian treatment or is being judged by a different standard, then by all means that can be a defense.
Animavore wrote: If you refute a point or claim made against a politician you refute a point. Adding to that what everyone else is at is superfluous. It's also sort of tattletale behaviour.
No, if I say that a candidate is not qualified because they never held "executive office" (such as being a governor of state), but I don't apply that same standard to other candidates who also have not been executive officers, then I am not being consistent and I can even be said to be applying a rule hypocritically. Same goes for "being educated in science." If being educated in science is an important qualification for Trump, then it should not be just an important qualification for him. And, being educated in science doesn't mean "agreeing with what is politically expedient." If being selfish is important to a candidate, then it's not just an important thing when it comes to Trump.

So, one can reasonably argue that alleged qualifications are not really generally applicable qualifications - it's o.k. for Hillary not to be very giving, for some reason, and to focus on her own advancement and advantage -- but, if Trump focuses on his self-interest, that's a problem. How does that square with the assertion that "thinking about others rather than oneself" is an important qualification for office?

Animavore wrote:
Forty Two wrote: Also, I don't go on long winded speils about the other politicians. Most of my post was about Trump - for example the charitable endeavors. The fact that you say he's selfish, but I can pretty much demonstrate that he does more for others than the other candidates would seem to be very relevant in an analysis as to whether his generosity is sufficient to qualify him as a candidate for President.
Not really. You only needed to counter the argument. It wasn't necessary at all to even bring the other candidates into it.
It is not necessary, but it strengthens the argument. If you disqualify A for being selfish, but you ignore the selfishness in B, by not saying "since B is not as giving as A, who I consider to be selfish, then I must logically disqualify B too" you are not consistently applying a standard. You are saying that selfishness is a disqualifying attribute when it comes to A, but not to B.

That's what people sometimes forget when addressing Trump. They say "oh, Trump is a loose cannon who may start a war." But, then when you compare him to other politicians, including our current President, and candidate Hillary Clinton, etc., we see that starting wars is commonplace among the more mainstream candidates. Hillary is obviously a hawk, not a dove. And, that's based on a proven track record of support for military intervention. So, to say that Trump is disqualified because I am worried about another military intervention, but to not also disqualify Hillary Clinton, is illogical on its face. Hillary is much more welcoming of new military actions than Trump is.

it's no answer to say "well I'm not talking about Hillary, I'm talking about Trump." An answer would be say "by the same standard, Hillary is ALSO not qualified to be President." But, there is often a resistance to saying that.... for what I think are obvious reasons.

Animavore wrote:
Forty Two wrote: Well, you have no idea that Trump can't make sound decisions on matters of policy related to science, and almost no politicians are educated and schooled in science. "listening to the experts" is not being educated in science.

And, Trump has not "bought into denialism" - you said so by citing an example that was debunked.
Trump is a climate change denialist. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... lieves-in/
Trump's position on climate change has been modifying... He is not presently a denier. He does have skepticism about some of it -- he refers to the money making aspect of the climate change movement -- the carbon credits bullshit (which was a money making scheme and is largely on the outs now). I'll grant you, he's said incendiary things about climate change. But, he has also softened on the issue, and most of his skepticism comes from his recognition that people have used it to develop money-making cons. And, they have.

However, it's also not much better to be politically hook, line and sinker accepting of every COURSE OF ACTION that climate change activists want. Recognizing climate change as a real does not necessitate acceptance of everything the activists demand be done about it.

Animavore wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
It depends. If their inaction means that they are undercutting us economically, then the smart move might be to compel China's compliance through aggressive trade dealing and economic action. It may not mean that we get dirtier -- it may mean that we take steps to make China behave cleaner.
Except China are taking action.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-clima ... SKCN0XJ1QP
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... ate-change
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/world ... .html?_r=0
Lip service -- and some is smoke and mirrors -- They underreport and cheat -- like under reporting their coal consumption -- http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/n ... a-suggests and http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/world ... .html?_r=0 And, that's from the Guardian and the New York Times, not a right wing source.

Here is China's climate: http://www.scoopnest.com/user/Convertbo ... 6685813760

This is one area where Trump has it right - China cheats. We have to nail them down on these issues.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Prediction

Post by Tyrannical » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:11 pm

Animavore wrote:
Tyrannical wrote:Few if any climatologists have the background in chemistry, physics, and math to make any accurate predictions.
:funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :funny:

When your starting point is as completely wrong as this there's no hope for you.
It's above PhD level work in math, chemistry, and physics. Few if any climatologists have that educational background. Which is why their predictions are always wrong. I think trump realizes that.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39276
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Prediction

Post by Animavore » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:13 pm

Fine. Continue to post about other candidates. I'll continue to skip over them.
Forty Two wrote:Trump's position on climate change has been modifying... He is not presently a denier. He does have skepticism about some of it -- he refers to the money making aspect of the climate change movement -- the carbon credits bullshit (which was a money making scheme and is largely on the outs now). I'll grant you, he's said incendiary things about climate change. But, he has also softened on the issue, and most of his skepticism comes from his recognition that people have used it to develop money-making cons. And, they have.
I just showed you an article where he flat out said he denied it.
Forty Two wrote:And, that's from the Guardian and the New York Times, not a right wing source.
Not sure why that should be surprising? The Guardian is one of the best reporters of climate change and related issues out there. They always hang cheaters.
In fact I'd be gobsmacked if I saw a right-wing source do any type of decent reporting on the issue.
Forty Two wrote: This is one area where Trump has it right - China cheats. We have to nail them down on these issues.
Sure, but let's not use it as an excuse to say, "Why should we cut back when other countries will only do it anyway." Which has been one of the main arguments of right-wing, denialist think tanks like the Heartland Institute.
Last edited by Animavore on Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39276
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Prediction

Post by Animavore » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:19 pm

Tyrannical wrote: It's above PhD level work in math, chemistry, and physics. Few if any climatologists have that educational background. Which is why their predictions are always wrong. I think trump realizes that.
Climatologists need a strong background in the sciences including meteorology, atmospheric science, physics, mathematics, and computer programming. A master’s degree, or preferably a Ph.D., in atmospheric science is necessary for a successful career. However, students do not have to pursue atmospheric science in the undergraduate setting. Many students choose to study other disciplines including mathematics, physics, and engineering.
http://weusemath.org/?career=climatologist
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Prediction

Post by Tyrannical » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:24 pm

You might want to actually read the link you posted. It's not helping your case. I already know what it takes for a PhD in climatology, and what it lacks lol
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39276
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Prediction

Post by Animavore » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:31 pm

:fp:
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
piscator
Posts: 4725
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:11 am
Location: The Big BSOD
Contact:

Re: GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Prediction

Post by piscator » Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:03 pm

Animavore wrote::fp:

Yeah. Like he's in a position to determine that. Or would ever be.

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Prediction

Post by Tyrannical » Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:29 pm

I'll take that as a too ignorant to understand.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60753
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Prediction

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:28 am

Forty Two wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
tattuchu wrote:
Forty Two wrote: Anybody but Hillary - good on you.
Shillary? I used to be fairly neutral on Shillary simply because I didn't know much about her. The more I learn, however, the less I like her.
She's detestable, but she's a lot more electable than bernie"I'll die in office if I ever reach office" Sanders, and she's a lor more likeable than trumpzilla or that crazy dominionist cruz
I don't get it - Trump has much more liberal views than Hillary on most issues. Hillary is a free-trading neoconservative, and Trump wants to protest American workers, including union workers, from unfair trade deals, and unfair labor practices overseas undercutting US wages and working conditions.


Yes. That's why he uses American workers to make his clothes.
Trump is proposing tax relief for working families -- any joint filers making $50k and under would pay $0 in federal taxes (single income filers would pay $0 up to $25,000. There would be four brackets, 0%, 10%, 20% and 25%.


Reducing the top tax rate by a third isn't liberal/progressive.

Let alone how he's going to pay for such a massive cut in government revenue.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests