Donald Trump and US politics

"

Raycheetah wrote:

The popularity contest ended last November. =^[.]^=

Whatever that was, it wasn't a contest of popularity. We all know who lost that vote.

"

Upandatem wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

The popularity contest ended last November. =^[.]^=

Whatever that was, it wasn't a contest of popularity. We all know who lost that vote.

Damn...

"

Upandatem wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

The popularity contest ended last November. =^[.]^=

Whatever that was, it wasn't a contest of popularity. We all know who lost that vote.

Uh-huh. And who still, by law, is now President of the United States, because our Republic isn't a "democracy." =^[.]^=

"

soneka101 wrote:

You also might find this interesting:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/running-list-president-trump-missed-deadlines-article-1.3269623

The very last thing anyone wants to read is an article whining about accuracy that can't get it's own facts right, and in some cases blatantly lies. For example from the link you posted:

"Evidence of an Obama wiretap Trump, citing zero evidence, lobbed a Twitter accusation in March that former President Barack Obama had ordered an illegal Trump Tower “tapp” during the campaign. He told Fox News on March 15 he would soon be “submitting things” to the House Intelligence Committee, adding “you’re going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks.”

Three months later: zilch."

Within three weeks of that date, Susan Rice was being implicated and Trump's team was working with the intelligence committees on how she and Obama were electronically spying on Trump. If Susan Rice were innocent, it is unlikely there would be a rush attempt to seal all of her records and remove them from government records and send them to a presidential library that hasn't even been built - yet that is what we have. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/22/susan-rice-records-intelligence-committee-wants-ar/ Susan Rice will likely end up in prison. At this point, the public has a good idea of how Obama spied on Trump and his team, using both domestic and foreign assets. Indeed, there would and could be no Russian collusion investigation of Trump without the espionage data.

It is the exact opposite of Zilch.

"

soneka101 wrote:

Yeah... give rich people money and then pray they will reinvest in the economy. No way they would travel around the world with it.

If someone is already rich, they are almost certainly traveling as much as they want to already. What tends to slow their travel habits is work, and related responsibilities, not money. If Johnny Depp gets a 5% tax break, for instance, he isn't going to say "At last now I finally can afford to fly to Australia."

"

soneka101 wrote:

Yeah... give rich people money and then pray they will reinvest in the economy. No way they would travel around the world with it. No way they would spend with overpriced luxuries that other rich people are selling. Yeah, this money won't stay with the top 1%, it will trickle down as it have before when this was tried...

Because everything rich people buy is sold by other rich people? How does that work exactly? Something like the following scenario?


Warren Buffet: "Hey Bill, just thought I'd let you know that since I saved $2,500,000 on my taxes, I am going to buy a copy, no make that TWO copies of Windows 10"

Bill Gates: "Thanks, Warren, with that extra $59, I can finally afford to fly to Australia. By the way, did you ever get ahold of Ms Walton?"

Warren Buffet: "I did talk to Alice, and she says she doesn't have any brown socks in my size, I'm in a real bind now."

Bill Gates: "Just fly one of your butlers over in the Gulfstream and I'll send him back with a couple pair, we can't have you spending your money with plebs."

Warren Buffet: "Thanks Bill, I can always count on you in a crisis situation."

The normalization of left-wing political violence strikes close to home: https://youtu.be/qnZWwVN-2tk

I wish my first non-D3 YT video would be under better circumstances. Long conversations were had and will be had.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Alexandre or Michel? Unless you meant Justin Castreau.

I was talking about his father Pierre-Elliott Trudeau. The worst prime minister Canada ever had.... and his son is on his way to do just like his daddy.

Well... let's go then.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

The very last thing anyone wants to read is an article whining about accuracy that can't get it's own facts right, and in some cases blatantly lies. For example from the link you posted:

"Evidence of an Obama wiretap Trump, citing zero evidence, lobbed a Twitter accusation in March that former President Barack Obama had ordered an illegal Trump Tower “tapp” during the campaign. He told Fox News on March 15 he would soon be “submitting things” to the House Intelligence Committee, adding “you’re going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks.”

Three months later: zilch."

Within three weeks of that date, Susan Rice was being implicated and Trump's team was working with the intelligence committees on how she and Obama were electronically spying on Trump. If Susan Rice were innocent, it is unlikely there would be a rush attempt to seal all of her records and remove them from government records and send them to a presidential library that hasn't even been built - yet that is what we have. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/22/susan-rice-records-intelligence-committee-wants-ar/ Susan Rice will likely end up in prison. At this point, the public has a good idea of how Obama spied on Trump and his team, using both domestic and foreign assets. Indeed, there would and could be no Russian collusion investigation of Trump without the espionage data.

It is the exact opposite of Zilch.

1-Trump said he would provide evidence that he had been wiretapped, something about unmasking shows up latter and then he goes: "Yeah! That was the thing I was talking about!". Yeah, sure, we believe you meant that all along.

2-He said Trump Tower was being wiretapped, when in fact they were legally monitoring the Russian Embassy when they intercepted the calls between his people and the foreign agents.

3-Susan Rice received reports saying that foreign officials were talking to american citizens. It's unlawful to disclose the names of such citizens unless:
A-) It's impossible to understand the context of the intelligence without the names.
B-) There's probable cause that criminal conduct was involved.

So, there's absolute NO EVIDENCE that Trump has been wiretapped, seriously, zilch. And if you want to find fault at Rice's unmasking you will have to prove that she didn't need to unmask (as said in "A" and "B").

"

DalaiLama wrote:

If someone is already rich, they are almost certainly traveling as much as they want to already. What tends to slow their travel habits is work, and related responsibilities, not money. If Johnny Depp gets a 5% tax break, for instance, he isn't going to say "At last now I finally can afford to fly to Australia."

Well, my point still stands. If they get tax cuts nothing is stopping then from spending the money overseas. You say that maybe they won't, I say that maybe they will, nevertheless they can, and that's the point.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Because everything rich people buy is sold by other rich people? How does that work exactly? Something like the following scenario?


Warren Buffet: "Hey Bill, just thought I'd let you know that since I saved $2,500,000 on my taxes, I am going to buy a copy, no make that TWO copies of Windows 10"

Bill Gates: "Thanks, Warren, with that extra $59, I can finally afford to fly to Australia. By the way, did you ever get ahold of Ms Walton?"

Warren Buffet: "I did talk to Alice, and she says she doesn't have any brown socks in my size, I'm in a real bind now."

Bill Gates: "Just fly one of your butlers over in the Gulfstream and I'll send him back with a couple pair, we can't have you spending your money with plebs."

Warren Buffet: "Thanks Bill, I can always count on you in a crisis situation."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2017/05/26/melania-trump-wears-51-thousand-dollar-dolce-and-gabanna-coat-in-sicily/102197434/

I wonder if you are trying to miss the point on purpose.

Edit: Just reinforcing: "Trickle down" economics doesn't work, it was tried before it just doesn't.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

It isn't one or two black sheep. It's a top to bottom cult buy in. If you have a master's degree and want to pursue a Phd, then you agree with whatever the politically correct stance is, or you will not make it through the program. This is true in the social sciences as well as the physical sciences.

Even if that was true, which it isn't, that would not preclude you from changing your view or adjusting it from to new results. Next paragraph, you go on and try to proof your Point by drawing a parrallel to how you believe the republican party or the democratic party works. First of all, science is not politics, and drawing parallels between them is rather strange. second, - ah, lets stay at the first point, ist reason enough.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

In the case of climate studies, we have refusal to share raw data to verify studies. We have deletion of raw data, and we have falsification of raw data

Again you are spilling out these accusations as if they a) were common practice (they are not), b) it was commonly known that it was common practice. (No, it is not. Only rumours amongst conspiracy theorists, repeated to each other over and over again. You are free to prove it, though. Although I don't like taking this position.)

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Think about what you just said. How many judges are involved in quantum chromodynamics? How many law enforcement officials are making sure that Coulomb's law isn't being violated. Since when were elementary teachers marching about the Dark Energy deniers and how the MOND (Modified Newtonian dynamics)are endangering our universe? That so many people are involved, tells you it is political, not scientific.

It was probably around 6.000 years ago that one person last knew everything there currently was to know. This, of course, is a completely made up assumption. It could have been 10.000 years ago or 3.000 years ago just as well. But you get the point and probably have heard this argument before: Growing knowledge requires specialization in certain fields of knowledge. I don't know what science or skill you are proficient in, but if you told me it was chemistry, I would be inclined to believe you telling me that funny things can happen if you harvest the soil from stables and do interesting things with it.

The fact that you, being an american, can stand up and shout that your president should rather farm peanuts then do politics, that candidate a belongs in jail and candidate b should win because he believes in the right god and so on; the fact that you can choose your job and decide that you want to study chemistry or law or medicine instead or in addition to shouting in the streets and do all that freely; the fact that if you do either, you can talk and write and be published or publish yourself; the fact that not only you but everyone in your country is free to do all that; those facts and the fact that despite all these free people with all that knowledge and those possibilities there is no convincing voice loudly proving the nefarious masses wrong, tells me that there is no conspiracy. Freedom is a potent antidote to it, and you and I and a huge part of the scientists enjoys it, too.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

When you are older and can look back and see how some of these predictions have played out - say over the next 30 years - you will form a vastly different opinion than you hold now. VASTLY DIFFERENT.

Much to my dismay, I am not very young anymore. But thirty years, that should be doable. I might hold you to that. Even if you sound as if you are afraid you might not make it to 2047? ;-)

"

DalaiLama wrote:

In the meantime, since we don't have a time machine handy, you can do some research on Maragatham Chandrasekar's theories

Only found an Indian politician by that name.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Let's say I'm a scientist studying axe murders. They still happen, so I don't need to lie about them. They don't happen as frequently as other types, so if I want to get any substantial research dollars, I'm going to have to find a way to convince the public that axe murders are a real concern. So let's say we had 1 axe murder (2005) and 1 in 2008 from 2000 to 2010. Now in 2012, we have a guy that commits 2 axe murders, so I publish a study in 2013 saying that in the current decade, Axe murders are up 500%. (2 per 2 years - so 10 in 10 years /2 per 10 years. I further sensationalize it by saying that ALL axe murders committed THIS decade involved hacking homeless people to death and the murderer eating the victims eyes and brains. I say that there will be more brain eating in the future if we don't deal with ax murder NOW. My facts are technically correct. My interpretation is not. If I showed you my data and you found it was based off of One killer with a grisly M.O. then you could call BS. Unfortunately, I won't share my data, and if investigated I will delete the data or alter it. Furthermore, I will call you an Axe Murder Denier and publicly shame you. I will claim that you are OK with axe murder, and that Axe companies must be paying you.

Was it Josef Stalin who said that one should only trust a statistic if he tampered with it personally? And what you described would not even be lying. However, what you are describing is not happening. Well, of course, I can't make that claim in good faith for each and every scientist over the whole of their careers. But with you being so freely with your claims, I almost feel obliged to reciprocate. It's just that I believe that would not lead to any good results. Instead I'll just refer to my points I made earlier: a.) burden of proof b.) protection inherent in a free society.

What the points we disagree on do illustrate, however, are how effective disinformation campaigns are. And if open societies really are this vulnerable, would this call for - or could it possibly justify - an law that prohibits spreading lies? I believe I know that you would be fundamentally against it, and there is good reason for that. But where I live, a variation of that exists, and there is good reason for that, too.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Here's a quick test - take 10 people you know that you think are well informed on Climate Change. Ask them what was in the Paris Accord, and for some specific details. Do they know, or are they just parroting others' opinions?

Interesting. I might do just that. Have you?

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Let's say that I proclaim that cheating in a game called Math of Exiles is a terrible thing, so terrible that we need to pass laws and sign an accord in Paris where entire nations are put under anti-cheating laws and taxes. Now, let's say I privately cheat at Math of Exiles. It isn't that I use an abacus instead of pen and paper to do the math. It isn't that I use a calculator. Let's say I use a warehouse full of dedicated math servers to cheat. What would you think of my stated position then?

Again: My position is that Trump pulled out of Paris under the pretext that it was bad for America; it is not. Better: It might be for those that do not adapt to a changing economy. But the USA's economy's strength is not based on five-year-plans and a single business-idea. Let me remind you: you won the economic battle against that five-year-plans roughly 30 years ago. With adaptability. With fresh ideas. With freedom. By having the deeper pockets, out of which the fresh ideas were funded.

The companies I named, despite the business they are in, are what makes your economy strong. they realized that the climate change would be inevitable and prepared for that. They intend to thrive in it. So could the rest of the country. The USA have the knowledge and the money to profit from overcoming the obstacles. Instead, closing the eyes and moving on just like it ever was reminds me of the dinosaurs and their end. So yes, this was one of Trumps worst decisions.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

What if I said climate change was bad, fossil fuels are horrible, we need more mass transportation, solar power .... yada yada yada, but I flew to a climate change convention in my own private plane?

What if 1700 of us did?

... if a story sounds to good to be true, fact-check.

http://fusion.kinja.com/fact-check-how-many-private-jets-actually-flew-in-to-d-1793844819

It was probably between 200 and 300 private jets and not 1700. Still a lot. By the way, what do you think the world economic forum is?

"

DalaiLama wrote:

can see that your position is based on trusting the scientific community as a whole. If you trust them completely, then only their consensus words will matter to you. Whether your faith in them is justifiable will be shown over time. Start to save web pages where predictions are made - predictions with measurable numbers and time frames. In 5 -10 years look back and see how they played out.

Good Idea. So let me just browse through my imaginary Archive. What do we have here.... Ah, a denialist page from 2010. It says global warming stopped, no further warming since x years! Global warming a hoax! Hm. Na, didnt help.... Ah! maybe this? http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-14345557.html. If you could read german, you should give it a try. The Spiegel, a rather prestigious german news magazine, covers a book that predicted a coming ice age. Which a few scientists really thought to be a realistic asumption. It was, however, not consensus amongst scientists, in the way that global warming is today. But yes, I would be glad if it turned out just the way you say. I don't believe it will, though.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

If you have extra time - dig into the Eugenics movement, the people involved, who they influenced, the scientists involved, the politics, the theories etc. Now follow them through history. Guess who they became?

Hm? na. again, thats very far fetched. They might be connected in the same way that I have paid for a loaf of bread with a Banknote that others paid for cocaine with. But that does not make me in any way connected to the crime the dealer committed! (in a way, it does though. German penal law has it’s funny aspects, too. Forget the RICO act. Thats for children. ;-)

the medias right now :3

But, but, muh Russia... :((

American Pravda: CNN Producer Says Russia Narrative “bullsh*t"