Donald Trump and US politics

"

SarahAustin wrote:

Hitler was also "democratically" elected.

No. Hitler never had the needed majority in parlament.

Hitler was not democratically elected. He killed everyone in night of long knives and made himself dictator. As usual leftests know nothing.

Anyway it's nonsense Trump is doing anything out of ordinary or not within his right as POTUS. Obama had imposed a freeze over the processing of Iraqi refugees for six months. Is he Hitler?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

USA doesnt have to allow anyone in period. And shouldnt with state of our economy. Millions of homeless & high real unemployment! This is not 1970s anymore when my grandparents came here and everyone was begging for employees. In times like these total moratoriums should be placed on immigration like FDR did in great depression.

I forget the name of the visa, it's a certain type. Corporations use it to hire people for jobs which they claim no Americans are not smart enough to do. Then they import foreigners who are thrilled to be paid $10/hr. Meanwhile, we have unemployed computer engineers, pharmacists, etc.

Any sovereign nation has the right to restrict or even curtail immigration if it sees fit. That is from international law, folks.

H1B. They just dont want to pay Americans living wages. As usual democrats love that too even though they talk about "living wage".

Cheap labor Democrats. Everything they do lowers wages if not create homeless and impoverished cities.


Just look at the liberal cities in America. It's more dangerous in Chicago than Iraq. LA, Portland, SF homeless everywhere.

BTW Do Cheap Labor Democrats help them? Is Madonna opening up her checkbook and malibu mansion to hundreds of thousands of california homeless created by cheap labor democrats? Hell no. They rely on conservative orgs like catholic charities which they bash non stop. Worst hypocrites ever. Conservative cities like Tulsa, SLC, etc dont have these catastrophic sociological problems created by Cheap Labor Democrats.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Getting brainwashed isn't really about a general lack of intelligence, it's about poor epistemological ethics — that is, the ethics of allocating trust. Some of the people with the most knowledge have gotten that way by absorbing all around them rather indescriminately, trusting almost all sources; conversely, those more skeptical tend to have less raw knowledge (in some cases, very little indeed) in exchange for a better truth-to-falsity ratio.

What you call knowledgeable, I might call gullible. The later implies a lack of wisdom. A wise person understands that individuals and even groups can have ulterior motives that aren't made clear up front. This also means people will hand pick certain facts that support their case, while discounting others that might put their position in question. At the end of the day, I think most people support whatever makes them feel good, emotionally. Regardless of the facts.

They don't teach critical thinking skills in schools anymore. And haven't for quite awhile. It's on the parents to teach their kids critical thinking skills.

If you ever doubted that Trump is playing 7D intergalactic pre-singularity backgammon, you need to read this.



Now watch him bait these shills into losing their non-profit status.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Getting brainwashed isn't really about a general lack of intelligence, it's about poor epistemological ethics — that is, the ethics of allocating trust. Some of the people with the most knowledge have gotten that way by absorbing all around them rather indescriminately, trusting almost all sources; conversely, those more skeptical tend to have less raw knowledge (in some cases, very little indeed) in exchange for a better truth-to-falsity ratio.

What you call knowledgeable, I might call gullible. The later implies a lack of wisdom. A wise person understands that individuals and even groups can have ulterior motives that aren't made clear up front. This also means people will hand pick certain facts that support their case, while discounting others that might put their position in question. At the end of the day, I think most people support whatever makes them feel good, emotionally. Regardless of the facts.

You're assuming a hostile environment when you make gullibility into a serious vice; there's no harm in blindly trusting those who are truthful with you. Additionally, everyone trusts on some things (especially outside their interest or expertise); individuals simply don't have the resources to science everything independently.

The way trust normally works is: you borrow someone's claim and run with it until something breaks. Of course people trust whatever makes them feel good.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

You're assuming a hostile environment when you make gullibility into a serious vice; there's no harm in blindly trusting those who are truthful with you.

Someone who's gullible might not recognize when someone's being truthful, or is playing them.

My lack of willingness to trust individuals until proven otherwise is based on life experience. Trust with me is something that's earned, not given up front.

"

Additionally, everyone trusts on some things (especially outside their interest or expertise); individuals simply don't have the resources to science everything independently.

This is true, but one also needs to understand that even science is politicized/capitalized. It's not a purely, 100% objective entity anymore. If my doctor told me I had a heart problem, I'd believe him without question, even though I'd probably want a 2nd or 3rd opinion if we're talking about serious surgery.

My dad had cancer of the esophagus. They wanted to remove it and put a piece of tubing in. When he called me on the phone and told me that shit, I told him that sounds like a bullshit surgery for 2015 (at that time), and they probably got a non-invasive method of removing the cancer (a guess based on different things I read about medical procedures). Turns out they did. They ended up burning the cancerous tissue out with ultrasound (or similar method, can't remember). 3 treatments later, and they say they got it all.

This is why someone should question even doctors, even if they're not experts. Turns out the doctor that recommended he get his esophagus removed would have gotten a % cut by recommending the surgery. So he recommended the most expensive procedure possible. A real piece of shit. And people wonder why I'm so cynical.

If some source with a political agenda quotes a scientific article for climate change, I'd be skeptical. Meaning the information posted is unlikely to sway my opinion one way or the other.

wow I'm just catching the news we just had a massive shootout in Canada Québec city in a Mosque. 5 Muslims were killed and around 10 wounded.


I never saw something like that happening here it's scary.