ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , Trump administration , Trump controversies

Reply
Old Today, 06:24 PM   #3121
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 4,014
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I agree. I began to suspect where the post was going to go when I got to this part:

This CT has been done to death by the right and for anyone who claims to be objective at all to continue to believe it is ludicrous:

Snopes graded the Right's Uranium One "conspiracy" FALSE,

Factcheck.org said " Donald Trump falsely accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of giving away U.S. uranium rights to the Russians and claimed — without evidence — that it was done in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Politifact gave the Trump's allegation a Mostly False

The WAPO Fact Checker gave Trump's accusations its worst rating of Four Pinocchios

It just went downhill from there with this:


After the Uranium One nonsense, that did not come as a surprise. However, it got worse when he started with this:


It became quite clear that trying to debate in an intellectually honest way would be impossible.
I'm still trying to decipher this little tidbit-

Quote:
It's amazing to me how "homogeneously mentally disabled" to scrutinize the credibility of someone is ... only to be fully restored when the allegation is made about someone else.
It's amazing to me that that's a sentence in English that somehow defies any reasonable attempt at parsing. It's the kind of gibberish I've seen from autodidacts who flunked the course; big words sound smart, so me use big words, me smart.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:47 PM   #3122
TrumanHW
New Blood
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Jesus Christ, what a mess that was; there's a big old honkin' "QUOTE" button down there on the bottom right of each post. This ain't rocket surgery, man...(h/t David Lee Roth)

As for the bit I quoted above- you do know that in her opening statement, she said this?


Seriously- did all that "background in Law Enforcement, in search warrants, investigating crimes, rights of the accused, the criteria, etc etc." not include a course in how to Google information?

And I have to tell you, someone who can get something as basic as that so badly wrong doesn't really inspire much confidence that it would be worthwhile to bother wading through a mess like your post to check on anything else you might say.

ETA this link to a transcript of Dr. Ford's opening statement.


That was about half-way through what I'd written.

She still wasn't particularly specific -- the week would've been better... or saying "on a Friday or Saturday night ... between late-July and early-August I'd attended a party on such and such a street... and was driven there by so-n-so."

No one else remembers any of her allegations if I recall. And with regard to my recollection of the Ford/Kavanaugh BS ... wasn't this about 18 months ago now..?


But anything I say should be dismissed because of my lack of precision describing her vagaries..? Haha. You don't even see the irony of that, do you?

Others who'd made similar allegations admitted to have lied, yet no one takes a second to rethink their criteria for believing claims..?


You're guilty of motivated reasoning.

I disagreed with Kavanaugh's likely beliefs and would prefer abortions remain legal. Though, I cannot see how abortions should be a legal right! Why would a medical procedure be covered under a 'Right to Privacy..? You have a right to privacy under other rulings, anyway. Why aren't other procedures provided such 'privacies' ..?

It's more accurate to cover it under states rights... and regardless with how, I'm still Pro Choice.

But I would bet money that MOST people who believed all women (aka, took Ford's word for something we usually reserve for judgement by a jury of your peers) ... would DIRECTLY map on to people's beliefs and concerns over a pro-choice or pro-life argument.


The difference between you and people who provide the cover for your irrational beliefs ... is a list of latin phrases referring to biases & fallacies.

ANYTHING SHORT OF PLACING THE ONUS OF PROOF ON THE PERSON MAKING THE ALLEGATION IS UNAMERICAN and UNPRINCIPLED.

The extent to which I am a conservative ... is my gratitude and respect for The Constitution and the Rights which flows from it.


Considerations of Fords credibility -- to the extent I accurately recall:
Anyone educated in psychology would learn how fallible eye-witness testimony is. She'd lied about helping someone take a polygraph. She committed credit card fraud and lied about it to her bf until he was going to tell the police -- at which point she admitted to it.

Not to mention ... PATERNITY FRAUD: Of which, up to 25% of men have been lied to by women.

Just how seriously am I to take someone who'd argue to believe people based on their gender..?

Last edited by TrumanHW; Today at 06:49 PM.
TrumanHW is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:04 PM   #3123
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,826
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Trump Tweets

Republicans should fight very hard when it comes to state wide mail-in voting. Democrats are clamoring for it. Tremendous potential for voter fraud, and for whatever reason, doesn’t work out well for Republicans.
@foxandfriends
Exhibit Number 108 why Trump is a disaster. He cares not one whit for the country but only for his own tribe. That's second only to himself.

Also, I note the heads-up to Fox. Hannity is the VP, not Pence.
SezMe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:11 PM   #3124
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,826
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Trump has announced Kayleigh McEnany -- his former 2020 campaign spokesperson -- has been named the new White House press secretary, replacing Stephanie Grisham who, in nine months as press secretary, never held a press conference.<snip>(
Yet another Fox bimbo. She has emphatically stated that Trump has never lied! Stephen Miller is probably having wet dreams about working with her.
SezMe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:14 PM   #3125
TrumanHW
New Blood
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
I'm still trying to decipher this little tidbit-



It's amazing to me that that's a sentence in English that somehow defies any reasonable attempt at parsing. It's the kind of gibberish I've seen from autodidacts who flunked the course; big words sound smart, so me use big words, me smart.
citing an appeal to authority (snopes) isn't "proof"

There is no 'DIRECT PROOF' ... but the same guy who got the contract donated money to Clinton Foundation which they've yet to charitably donate..? Guess the world's just dandy.

If however, those same standards of 'DIRECT PROOF' were levied against all democrat-claims, Trump's administration would've been scandal free. LIVE BY CONSISTENT RULES.

Investors donate millions to the Clinton Foundation and give Bill a $500,000 speaking fee in Russia (where he met with Putin) around the time of the deal.

Curious ... How much does Bill usually get, again..?

Is it in the U.S. interest that Russia get Uranium, a resource the U.S. actually needs..?



Frankly, I'd like to have the time to break it down to breadcrumbs, but I don't.

Regardless of what I say, you've already chosen what you'll believe.

Generally speaking -- Even if 3/8 statements I made seemed logical or you actually looked up to be demonstrably true, you already resent one opinion of mine, so the only thing you're going to do is try to hump my leg by arguing some point you think you have evidence for.


You're intellectually dishonest, driven by beliefs you want to be true ... instead of basing your beliefs on the dispassionate assessment of facts.

Here, let me help you feel better.

Whatever you wish // need to be true, is true. Be happy, but do it absent pretending to discuss something with me.
TrumanHW is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:20 PM   #3126
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,826
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
I still don't even think he did it.
You have to sign your mail-in ballot...well, at least it's that way in California. It's a federal crime to sign for someone else.
SezMe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:22 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.