Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Wyrt]

Oh the United States is EXACTLY about to build public policy on "quit being a daft ***". Its called civil war, death, destruction, etc.

We'll likely see civil unrest if Trump gets impeached. The only saving grace is that impeachment doesn't remove him from office. But impeachment is playing with fire. You impeach him and Trump is gonna run around the south and the rust belt screaming coup and rally a large force to revolt in response.

You can sit there, examine your navels, and wonder if the scientific community has credibility but TRUMP has credibility these days.

If the dumb cunts want to remove themselves from the gene pool that's only a benefit to humanity.

[Dontrike]

Trump got elected. If the scientific community had credibility, that doesn't happen.

*Sigh*...........what.......?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh the United States is EXACTLY about to build public policy on "quit being a daft ***". Its called civil war, death, destruction, etc.

We'll likely see civil unrest if Trump gets impeached. The only saving grace is that impeachment doesn't remove him from office. But impeachment is playing with fire. You impeach him and Trump is gonna run around the south and the rust belt screaming coup and rally a large force to revolt in response.

You can sit there, examine your navels, and wonder if the scientific community has credibility but TRUMP has credibility these days.

And another civil war post, do you tire of writing that?

[zorkuus]

*Sigh*...........what.......?

I think he broke his brain trying to come up with these arguments.

[rda]

Edit: "Climategate" was a textbook definition of a manufactured issue and meant nothing that the people pushing it said it did, as is usual with people who don't understand when actual scientists talk. See the informative and ever patient Potholer54 for more information.

The good thing about science is that it's true regardless of whether you believe it or not.

So it bears repeating: The actual problem with Climategate was that the controversy was completely manufactured by people who had no idea what they were talking about but were being paid by polluters and right-wing donors to 'discredit' climate science.

I am not sure why you think that you repeating the same baseless opinion about Climategate which you got from god knows where, but almost certainly not from the actual Climategate documents, is somehow convincing. Did you see the documents? Do you understand what the fuss was about? I doubt it. You are just parroting what others said about Climategate before.

The good thing about science is that it is true whether you believe it or not, indeed. This is exactly true. Learn what it is now, you are in for a surprise.

- - - Updated - - -

The credibility of scientific community has been destroyed. People on the right now very them with extreme skepticism and feel they are a left-wing puppet show. So referencing the scientific community to back up ANY claims is worthless.

Not all scientific community, just part of it, but yes, this echoes into other parts as well, and that's pretty terrible.

[Dontrike]

Not all scientific community, just part of it, but yes, this echoes into other parts as well, and that's pretty terrible.

Now we have two people saying this while offering nothing as to how and why that is. Yay for sources!

[Wyrt]

I do like how somehow the renewable energy industry has such insane wealth they can buy off basically all the scientists while the poor, impoverished fossil fuel companies can't even buy a single scientist.

[Shalcker]

Now we have two people saying this while offering nothing as to how and why that is. Yay for sources!

How about ongoing Replication Crisis?

[Shalcker]

Weird you’d reference something that’s got nothing to do with climate change.

Climategate is also example where Mann resisted replication of his findings by refusing to release data so that it could be independently verified.

If you want article about modern replication problems in climate sciences, you could read this (which, btw, views Climategate as a positive thing for scientific advancement).

[Dontrike]

I do like how somehow the renewable energy industry has such insane wealth they can buy off basically all the scientists while the poor, impoverished fossil fuel companies can't even buy a single scientist.

Big Solar is hurting us with its easy energy and little to no pollution! Down with the sun! Don't praise it! Kill it!

[Shalcker]

Yeah, you might want to look into this a little more closely. Mann was cleared by multiple investigations that found claims like yours were horseshit.

Those investigations were about different matters.

Climategate is net positive - as result more data is publicly available and less is hidden away out of sight with only conclusions available. That creates more robust scientific findings.

[Dontrike]

How about ongoing Replication Crisis?

So when something can't be replicated suddenly science is destroyed? That means science is still working. Proving something can't be replicated is fucking science. How in the blue motherfucking fuck don't you get that? That's quite literally called the scientific method.

Proving something can't work is a good fucking thing. That doesn't mean science can't be trusted, but that it can as it fucking literally has something that tests it to make sure if its science or not.

The idea that because something can't be replicated isn't science is so fucking baffling that I'm amazed more people don't fall down more often.

[Paranoid Android]

Well Trump did a sit down interview with Piers Morgan and of course it's bad.

I will link video that starts around the 27 second mark.

Here are the highlights/lowlights:

President Donald Trump in an interview with Piers Morgan on Wednesday was asked about his military record.

Trump claimed he “was never a fan” of the Vietnam war, which he avoided fighting in because of a “bone spur” condition.

He said: “I thought it was a terrible war I thought it was very far away, and at that time nobody ever heard of the country, today they’re doing very well,” said the president.

Alright seems he is saying he was a conscientious objector, which here on MMO I heard people use as a defense. The problem is twofold; 1) If he claims to be such a patriot and anyone who kneels he chose not to server. I mean the part of the military that you consider the most to sacrifice is to serve in a time of conflict. 2) One more time many didn't want to server but had no choice. This again brings up all his deferments, some of which are these so called bone spurs.

I hope Trump is repeatedly attacked by this but somehow the so called "patriots" will believe this guy is Mr. effin Red, White and Blue himself.

He went on to claim that he was “making up” for not serving in the military by increasing Pentagon funding.

Wow! First he is personally not writing the check of $700 billion. Congress appropriates the spending, but more to the matter is he thinks giving money is the ultimate sacrifice. Just superficial bullshit.

Trump has been called a “draft dodger” by opponents, including Democratic presidential contender Pete Buttigieg.

https://www.businessinsider.my/trump...ending-2019-6/

[Dontrike]

Well Trump did a sit down interview with Piers Morgan and of course it's bad.

I will link video that starts around the 27 second mark.

Here are the highlights/lowlights:

President Donald Trump in an interview with Piers Morgan on Wednesday was asked about his military record.





Alright seems he is saying he was a conscientious objector, which here on MMO I heard people use as a defense. The problem is twofold; 1) If he claims to be such a patriot and anyone who kneels he chose not to server. I mean the part of the military that you consider the most to sacrifice is to serve in a time of conflict. 2) One more time many didn't want to server but had no choice. This again brings up all his deferments, some of which are these so called bone spurs.

I hope Trump is repeatedly attacked by this but somehow the so called "patriots" will believe this guy is Mr. effin Red, White and Blue himself.



Wow! First he is personally not writing the check of $700 billion. Congress appropriates the spending, but more to the matter is he thinks giving money is the ultimate sacrifice. Just superficial bullshit.

Trump has been called a “draft dodger” by opponents, including Democratic presidential contender Pete Buttigieg.

https://www.businessinsider.my/trump...ending-2019-6/

Captain Bonespurs yet again showing how much of a coward he is, but this part right here confuses the ever loving fuck out of me. There is so much "what the hell" in it that I'm not sure how to go about it.

He said: “I thought it was a terrible war I thought it was very far away, and at that time nobody ever heard of the country, today they’re doing very well,” said the president.

So he didn't go because it was far away, but it's okay as they are doing okay now. I....I...*sigh*....

[Shalcker]

So when something can't be replicated suddenly science is destroyed?

Who said anything about science being "destroyed"? Credibility does suffer though.

That means science is still working. Proving something can't be replicated is fucking science. How in the blue motherfucking fuck don't you get that? That's quite literally called the scientific method.

When something that was considered true for decades fails to replicate... that brings huge questions.

As it should. It is called "crisis" for a reason.

For long time people haven't looked where they should have, and things got pretty bad.

Proving something can't work is a good fucking thing. That doesn't mean science can't be trusted, but that it can as it fucking literally has something that tests it to make sure if its science or not.

Yes, it means many things considered proven might not be. For various reasons.

Some finding like "5-HTTLPR depression gene" were huge, created 400+ follow-up studies that found effects wherever they looked... and it then turned out that there was no effect after all once geneticists with expertise in genetics looked at larger sample.

Consensus and multiple studies isn't total defence against being wrong.

The idea that because something can't be replicated isn't science is so fucking baffling that I'm amazed more people don't fall down more often.

If something cannot be replicated it cannot be seen as credible finding; it might still be science, and it might still even be right.

[rda]

So when something can't be replicated suddenly science is destroyed? [...] The idea that because something can't be replicated isn't science is so fucking baffling that I'm amazed more people don't fall down more often.

Yes, when something cannot be replicated, this is not science. Exactly. Live and learn. No, the scientific method is not "proving something cannot be replicated", LOL, what a weird idea. You are confused. You would do well not to reply to posts just because you want to say something contrary to posters you don't like.

[Dontrike]

When something that was considered true for decades fails to replicate... that brings huge questions.

You're right, like remember when we learned the earth was round and no one ever trusted science again because it was deemed true before that and now it's not? Remember when it was true that planes couldn't fly and then we figured it out, now no one trusts planes. Remember when getting into space was deemed impossible and now there are no satelites nor anyone going to the moon? Remember when we thought the atom was the smallest thing and now no one can trust science again because it was found out to be wrong. Fuck, you're so right, no one has ever trusted science after each of those. In fact I'm going to go out and fly a squirrel to Venus because I can't trust science anymore.

Yes, it means many things considered proven might not be. For various reasons.

Then you move on from that and it's still science doing it's fucking work. See, that's the thing about science, doesn't matter what we deem is right or wrong, because it's always true, it's up to us to find that out.

Even though we know the earth is round we still have fuckers, even some here, saying how it's flat, or other fuckers saying vaccinations don't work and actually harm you.

Some finding like "5-HTTLPR depression gene" were huge, created 400+ follow-up studies that found effects wherever they looked... and it then turned out that there was no effect after all once geneticists with expertise in genetics looked at larger sample.

Consensus and multiple studies isn't total defence against being wrong.

So science eventually found something to be false. Based on your logic of not being able to trust science, you're saying now we can't trust it, even though we found the answer.....do I have that right?

If something cannot be replicated it cannot be seen as credible finding; it might still be science, and it might still even be right.

Either way it's science.

Seriously, I've gotten better nuggets of logic and wisdom from Snapple bottles.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, when something cannot be replicated, this is not science. Exactly. Live and learn. No, the scientific method is not "proving something cannot be replicated", LOL, what a weird idea. You are confused. You would do well not to reply to posts just because you want to say something contrary to posters you don't like.

When you can't replicate something that's literally the scientific method proving it. The word science is part of the fucking term, but sure it must not be science. That in of itself is science. Proving something can't be done is part of what science is and does. Our understanding may not be able to get the right answer now, but to say that being unable to replicate something isn't science is fucking asinine.

And you might want to take your own advice, you don't have to post nonsense just because someone you don't like said something.

Oh sorry, am I being vitriolic towards you?

[Bodakane]

I'm not surprised people who defend Trump also don't understand how science works.

[rda]

I'm not surprised people who defend Trump also don't understand how science works.

Enlighten me, please, tell me what it is I don't understand.

[Dontrike]

I'm not surprised people who defend Trump also don't understand how science works.

Because science is only science when it's true!

- - - Updated - - -

Enlighten me, please, tell me what it is I don't understand.

A lot. When you are testing a theory or hypothesis that's science. It doesn't matter if you can't replicate it because you are following the path to see if it is or isn't true. That's literally science. The word is even in the god damned thing used to test theories and hypotheses so for you to say it isn't science is showing a vast misunderstanding on your part.

[rda]

When you can't replicate something that's literally the scientific method proving it. The word science is part of the fucking term, but sure it must not be science. That in of itself is science. Proving something can't be done is part of what science is and does. Our understanding may not be able to get the right answer now, but to say that being unable to replicate something isn't science is fucking asinine.

You are confused. The question is about reproducibility. When you have a study and a result - whether it is "X is right, here's why" or "X can never be right, here's why", does not matter - in order for that to be called science, others have to be able to repeat what you did and achieve the same result. That's reproducibility. If you don't have that, what you are doing is not science. The end.

- - - Updated - - -

A lot. When you are testing a theory or hypothesis that's science. It doesn't matter if you can't replicate it because you are following the path to see if it is or isn't true. That's literally science. The word is even in the god damned thing used to test theories and hypotheses so for you to say it isn't science is showing a vast misunderstanding on your part.

Reproducibility is not about whether the result is true or false. It's about whether others can repeat what you did and arrive at the same conclusion. As I say, you are confused.