Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Dead Moose Fandango]

He is going to get himself killed or put in a coma.

So, win/win. Sounds good.
[Infraction]

[Breccia]

You know her!

You love her!

That's right, it's Kim Davis the clerk who refused to give a marriage license to a homosexual couple!

The US Supreme Court has denied her appeal.

"Which of Trump's appointees joined with that decision?"

It was unanimous, so, "all of them".

That's it, what she did was now undeniably illegal and she is out of options.

[Zeth Hawkins]

This is just. So. Stupid.

Trump campaign attacks Joe Biden for lack of ‘firsthand experience’ being infected with COVID-19

Where was the attack?

[TigTone]

So, win/win. Sounds good.

More like win but with casualties. His horde of conspiracy theorist will want “revenge”.

[Felya]

Where was the attack?

Is it really that hard to click the link:

Trump campaign aide Erin Perrine on Monday suggested that President Donald Trump is a better leader than Democratic candidate Joe Biden because he has the “firsthand experience” of being infected with COVID-19.

While speaking to Fox News host Sandra Smith, Perrine pointed to Trump’s joyride around Walter Reed Medical Center to wave at supporters as evidence of him continuing with a presidential schedule, which she said was “more rigorous” than Joe Biden’s daily activities.

[Breccia]

Please oh please, let him get a set back. I want him to rush himself out of the hospital too quickly just to need to be rushed back in a few days because he can't breathe from COVID ravaging his lungs.

I know I keep saying this, but, the odds he dies really aren't that great. They've almost certainly already set up a WH ICU or the like where he'll be whisked away for four hours to return to the cameras for ten minutes, claiming he's been working all that time.

No matter how hard Trump tries to die, the WH doctors won't let him. They'll find something he'll accept, even if it's hydroxycotton-laced Doritos or something. Nobody wants to be the doctor that lost the President, or Trump for that matter.

Or, we'd see doctors coming forward. "He needs an IV, he'll be dead in minutes! Someone stop him!"

[Elegiac]

Where was the attack?

"Those firsthand experiences, Joe Biden, he doesn’t have those."

You can talk about firsthand experience without mentioning Biden. Just like you could also wear a piece of fabric over your face and significantly reduce your risk of catching coronavirus.

[Edge-]

Where was the attack?

Not an attack, I agree, but, "We're better prepared to handle covid because Trump now has firsthand experience with the virus." may quite possibly be the worst campaign pitch I've ever heard in my life.

I'll take the secret dental police and pony-based economy of Vermin Supreme before I buy that pitch.

[DingDongKing]

I'm delighted that he's forcing his release. More opportunities for a setback.

[kaelleria]

Presser in the 3PM hour.

Trump may not actually be leaving today. Another reporter is disputing the Marine One spotting.

I’ve been standing a few hundred yards from the LZ for several hours, and no helicopters have landed here.

https://twitter.com/evanvucci/status...76336110956545

[s_bushido]

"Which of Trump's appointees joined with that decision?"

It was unanimous, so, "all of them".

It may have been unanimous, but a couple of them still couldn't resist the opportunity to whine that fundamentalist whackjobs don't get to impose their beliefs on the rest of the country.

[nonameelf]

I see he's made clear his supreme court nominee is about being anti-abortion. As if that wasn't clear before.

And why does every time a Republican talk about "religious freedom" it means "freedom to discriminate against others?"

[Zaydin]

I know I keep saying this, but, the odds he dies really aren't that great. They've almost certainly already set up a WH ICU or the like where he'll be whisked away for four hours to return to the cameras for ten minutes, claiming he's been working all that time.

No matter how hard Trump tries to die, the WH doctors won't let him. They'll find something he'll accept, even if it's hydroxycotton-laced Doritos or something. Nobody wants to be the doctor that lost the President, or Trump for that matter.

Or, we'd see doctors coming forward. "He needs an IV, he'll be dead in minutes! Someone stop him!"

I'm not saying I expect him to die, either. I'd just love it if his hubris forces them to rush him back to the hospital in a few days because whatever care they can give him at the White House isn't sufficient to keep him alive.

It'd pretty much kill whatever is left of his campaign if they are forced to rush him back to Walter Reed after discharging himself prematurely.

[Elegiac]

I see he's made clear his supreme court nominee is about being anti-abortion. As if that wasn't clear before.

And why does every time a Republican talk about "religious freedom" it means "freedom to discriminate against others?"

The column on the left could easily be mistaken for the Republican platform.

[kaelleria]

More info on 2 White House residence staff members who tested positive - they worked for the housekeeping department on the third floor, and didn't come in direct contact w the first family. When their tests came back positive, they were told to use "discretion" in discussing it.

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status...80250315132929

So we probably have more in Housekeeping that haven't discussed it yet.

[Breccia]

It may have been unanimous, but a couple of them still couldn't resist the opportunity to whine that fundamentalist whackjobs don't get to impose their beliefs on the rest of the country.

"Mr. Manager, I didn't like the taste of this sandwich."
"Well, you ate it all, so you're paying for it."

[omeomorfismo]

Just as a for-instance; look into mathematicians trying to establish a proof that 2+2=4. It's bananas complicated, if you're not taking axiomatic shortcuts. http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html#trivia

unnecessary clarification
-math is necessarly axiomatic, there isnt any shortcuts. thats how we do math.
-that proof isnt complicated, its only the formal way to write down the proof. you choose language, structures, set axioms and then use them to prove.
-to be fair, dropping some structures assumed around the numbers you could easily shortern the proof. for example considering 2 and 4 only natural instead of complex number

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status...80250315132929

So we probably have more in Housekeeping that haven't discussed it yet.

Damnit, I was hoping that non-political staff wouldn't get hit. Fuck these people for infecting staff just trying to keep the place fucking clean.

[DSRilk]

It's not even that they're "edgy", it's that they're lazy. Dawkins in particular would mock the concept of "faith", but takes observational evidence as a given, even though it's fundamentally a similar kind of faith in the accuracy of observation that underpins his whole viewpoint.

This is a seriously disingenuous comparison unless you're unwilling to move past solipsism (in which case there's no point in debating ANYTHING). Yes, most philosophy relies on the assertion that reality exists. If you accept that, there is a huge disparity between "trusting" in testable observations that give repeatable results when made by others outside the initial scientist and "trusting" in faith as defined by most religions.

Just as a for-instance; look into mathematicians trying to establish a proof that 2+2=4. It's bananas complicated, if you're not taking axiomatic shortcuts. http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html#trivia

They're not "trying", it's been done. And it isn't bananas complicated, it's rather simple using set theory and natural numbers - and even easier if you simply follow that numbers are defined to represent certain relationships, and thus it doesn't need to be proven, but rather that concepts (like set theory) can be used to "prove" it, but arguably that's less about proving 2+2=4 and more about showing how set theory works as a means of proof. The link you reference is treating them as complex numbers instead of natural numbers (which isn't at all necessary for 2+2=4, it is simply easier to look at complex numbers through the lens of natural numbers; e.g. 2 as (2 + 0i). And even doing so, they aren't "trying" to prove it - they literally just took the existing proof and counted all the nested pre-existing proofs used to do it back to the core axioms.

I'm not defending "edgy Internet atheists" here, I find the majority to be annoying - and often employing poor logic. However, what I find arguably worse are the people who push post-modern false equivalencies to give the appearance of superiority or intelligence. As far as I can tell, it's basically today's version of the obnoxious atheist that I saw cropping up in the 90s and given wings on Internet forums a decade or two later.

[DingDongKing]

This is a seriously disingenuous comparison unless you're unwilling to move past solipsism (in which case there's no point in debating ANYTHING). Yes, most philosophy relies on the assertion that reality exists. If you accept that, there is a huge disparity between "trusting" in testable observations that give repeatable results when made by others outside the initial scientist and "trusting" in faith as defined by most religions.



They're not "trying", it's been done. And it isn't bananas complicated, it's rather simple using set theory and natural numbers - and even easier if you simply follow that numbers are defined to represent certain relationships, and thus it doesn't need to be proven, but rather that concepts (like set theory) can be used to "prove" it, but arguably that's less about proving 2+2=4 and more about showing how set theory works as a means of proof. The link you reference is treating them as complex numbers instead of natural numbers (which isn't at all necessary for 2+2=4, it is simply easier to look at complex numbers through the lens of natural numbers; e.g. 2 as (2 + 0i). And even doing so, they aren't "trying" to prove it - they literally just took the existing proof and counted all the nested pre-existing proofs used to do it back to the core axioms.

I'm not defending "edgy Internet atheists" here, I find the majority to be annoying - and often employing poor logic. However, what I find arguably worse are the people who push post-modern false equivalencies to give the appearance of superiority or intelligence. As far as I can tell, it's basically today's version of the obnoxious atheist that I saw cropping up in the 90s and given wings on Internet forums a decade or two later.

Stay on topic, boys and girls.