Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 280 of 378

Thread: Donald Trump

  1. #241
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,040
    So they actually, really believe rich people spend their money? It's not just a rhetorical technique?

    lol

  2. #242
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,040
    Bill Gates is super rich, and that means he eats 442,827,162 Calories per day, and visits Disney World 22,141 times per year.

    This message bought to you by the Cato Institute. "Thinking is hard, that's why we don't do it."

  3. #243
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,729
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    So they actually, really believe rich people spend their money? It's not just a rhetorical technique?

    lol
    I don't think people like Wookie really believe anything, he just reads what's conservative because it's conservative and gets spooked into believing by the big words. But I'm sure some people actually believe cutting taxes for the wealthy stimulates growth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    Bill Gates is super rich, and that means he eats 442,827,162 Calories per day, and visits Disney World 22,141 times per year.

    This message bought to you by the Cato Institute. "Thinking is hard, that's why we don't do it."
    If it's conservative, there's a propaganda front for it. I'm still amazed that conservatives actually believe the tea party was a grassroots movement.

  4. #244
    So how's Captain'Ramen these days, Jon

  5. #245
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,040
    I have no idea. I know he moved from leftist Los Angeles to the conservative paradise of the Netherlands, but I haven't talked to him in a long time.

  6. #246
    o_o

    Well, that was an answer I honestly didn't expect.

    (Of course, it also vaguely implies that Wookie06 could hypothetically move to Massachusetts or sth, I dunno)
    Last edited by Nikumubeki; 05-18-2016 at 11:08 AM.

  7. #247
    Child's Play CharitySon of Krokodile XVI
    Posts
    4,961
    Hey Jon didn't you move to the USA

  8. #248
    Human Computer
    Posts
    2,825
    I ran across this today, written by Paul Graham (a person I know nothing about), & thought it was relevant to the discussion regarding political beliefs.

    Keep Your Identity Small

    February 2009

    I finally realized today why politics and religion yield such uniquely useless discussions.

    As a rule, any mention of religion on an online forum degenerates into a religious argument. Why? Why does this happen with religion and not with Javascript or baking or other topics people talk about on forums?

    What's different about religion is that people don't feel they need to have any particular expertise to have opinions about it. All they need is strongly held beliefs, and anyone can have those. No thread about Javascript will grow as fast as one about religion, because people feel they have to be over some threshold of expertise to post comments about that. But on religion everyone's an expert.

    Then it struck me: this is the problem with politics too. Politics, like religion, is a topic where there's no threshold of expertise for expressing an opinion. All you need is strong convictions.

    Do religion and politics have something in common that explains this similarity? One possible explanation is that they deal with questions that have no definite answers, so there's no back pressure on people's opinions. Since no one can be proven wrong, every opinion is equally valid, and sensing this, everyone lets fly with theirs.

    But this isn't true. There are certainly some political questions that have definite answers, like how much a new government policy will cost. But the more precise political questions suffer the same fate as the vaguer ones.

    I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that's part of their identity. By definition they're partisan.

    Which topics engage people's identity depends on the people, not the topic. For example, a discussion about a battle that included citizens of one or more of the countries involved would probably degenerate into a political argument. But a discussion today about a battle that took place in the Bronze Age probably wouldn't. No one would know what side to be on. So it's not politics that's the source of the trouble, but identity. When people say a discussion has degenerated into a religious war, what they really mean is that it has started to be driven mostly by people's identities. [1]

    Because the point at which this happens depends on the people rather than the topic, it's a mistake to conclude that because a question tends to provoke religious wars, it must have no answer. For example, the question of the relative merits of programming languages often degenerates into a religious war, because so many programmers identify as X programmers or Y programmers. This sometimes leads people to conclude the question must be unanswerable—that all languages are equally good. Obviously that's false: anything else people make can be well or badly designed; why should this be uniquely impossible for programming languages? And indeed, you can have a fruitful discussion about the relative merits of programming languages, so long as you exclude people who respond from identity.

    More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any of the participants. What makes politics and religion such minefields is that they engage so many people's identities. But you could in principle have a useful conversation about them with some people. And there are other topics that might seem harmless, like the relative merits of Ford and Chevy pickup trucks, that you couldn't safely talk about with others.

    The most intriguing thing about this theory, if it's right, is that it explains not merely which kinds of discussions to avoid, but how to have better ideas. If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible. [2]

    Most people reading this will already be fairly tolerant. But there is a step beyond thinking of yourself as x but tolerating y: not even to consider yourself an x. The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.







    Notes

    [1] When that happens, it tends to happen fast, like a core going critical. The threshold for participating goes down to zero, which brings in more people. And they tend to say incendiary things, which draw more and angrier counterarguments.

    [2] There may be some things it's a net win to include in your identity. For example, being a scientist. But arguably that is more of a placeholder than an actual label—like putting NMI on a form that asks for your middle initial—because it doesn't commit you to believing anything in particular. A scientist isn't committed to believing in natural selection in the same way a bibilical literalist is committed to rejecting it. All he's committed to is following the evidence wherever it leads.

    Considering yourself a scientist is equivalent to putting a sign in a cupboard saying "this cupboard must be kept empty." Yes, strictly speaking, you're putting something in the cupboard, but not in the ordinary sense.

    Thanks to Sam Altman, Trevor Blackwell, Paul Buchheit, and Robert Morris for reading drafts of this.
    ? :)

  9. #249
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Mentat View Post
    Paul Graham (a person I know nothing about)
    A person who is respected mostly because he is rich, and believes Lisp could have prevented 9/11.

  10. #250
    Human Computer
    Posts
    2,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    A person who is respected mostly because he is rich, and believes Lisp could have prevented 9/11.
    I certainly don't want to end up defending someone that I don't know anything about & don't care to know anything about, so I'll just admit that I tend to separate the art from the artist (I don't change the station if Stranglehold happens to play & I don't vomit after realizing that I just finished watching a Polanski film), & that even a stopped clock is right twice each day. I think that what he says in this article is reasonable & it's brief enough that even Republicans won't mind reading it. Him being wealthy & thus a 1337 job creator is just icing on the cake. I'll look into the Lisp thing--that sounds like a humorous avenue to pursue.
    Last edited by Mentat; 05-20-2016 at 02:09 AM.
    ? :)

  11. #251
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,729
    Quote Originally Posted by Mentat View Post
    Then it struck me: this is the problem with politics too. Politics, like religion, is a topic where there's no threshold of expertise for expressing an opinion. All you need is strong convictions.
    Fair and balanced is just a way to tacitly insert an assumption: "all politicized views are equally valid, thus you must give me space to spread my views that are empirically wrong."

  12. #252
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,729
    I can create a political platform that's sole program is to reveal the mathematics conspiracy, that really pi is rational and there's a conspiracy to keep that from the public, but is it really political discrimination if no mathematics department will accept me for being stupid and insane?

    Not that criminal justice et al are as truthful as mathematics.

  13. #253
    Human Computer
    Posts
    2,825
    Name:  WJLOK0o.jpg
Views: 196
Size:  50.1 KB

    Anti-intellectualism is obviously not limited to the U.S., thus my pharmacist offering me things like oscillococcinum (...& everyone else claiming it works despite what those pesky scientists say) when I ask for actual medicine, here in France. It's interesting to see the left making the same sorts of mistakes when it comes to things like that, GMO's, etc. On one hand, it's nice to see people thinking that it's a good thing to hear the entire story, or both sides of an issue, but so many of us seem to lack the tools necessary to distinguish between what's likely true & what's complete bull****. It's also unfortunate that the media is pure entertainment at this point (for obvious reasons) & don't weed out the dumbasses for us, but instead give them a platform.
    Last edited by Mentat; 05-20-2016 at 05:40 AM.
    ? :)

  14. #254
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    He would probably be a lot like Reagan.
    Sorry for the lousy German

  15. #255
    Javascript is quite bad, tho'

  16. #256
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    A person who is respected mostly because he is rich, and believes Lisp could have prevented 9/11.
    Ahahaha.

    He also can't stop saying "um" every 10 seconds.

  17. #257
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,040
    It's ridiculous, too. Everybody knows that only C++ could have stopped 9/11.

    It's doing a damn good job stopping the F-35 from killing people, too.

  18. #258
    Is this what you're referring to?

    • "If used in combat, the Block 2B F-35 will need support from command and control elements to avoid threats, assist in target acquisition, and control weapons"
    • "no Verification Simulation in place for the F-35, despite eight years of work and $250 million in funding"
    • "Ejecting might kill you"

  19. #259
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,040
    "Data plumbers try to build an airplane" - what the headlines should say, but for some reason don't.

  20. #260
    (Still) On 13 week vacation
    LAWL

    Posts
    10,289
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    It's doing a damn good job stopping the F-35 from killing people, too.
    This is an incredible joke.
    >>untie shoes

  21. #261
    ur face is an incredible joke.

  22. #262
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,729
    Quote Originally Posted by Mentat View Post
    Anti-intellectualism is obviously not limited to the U.S., thus my pharmacist offering me things like oscillococcinum (...& everyone else claiming it works despite what those pesky scientists say) when I ask for actual medicine, here in France. It's interesting to see the left making the same sorts of mistakes when it comes to things like that, GMO's, etc. On one hand, it's nice to see people thinking that it's a good thing to hear the entire story, or both sides of an issue, but so many of us seem to lack the tools necessary to distinguish between what's likely true & what's complete bull****. It's also unfortunate that the media is pure entertainment at this point (for obvious reasons) & don't weed out the dumbasses for us, but instead give them a platform.
    We shouldn't be sentimental though, and we should remember that people have always been really stupid. People buy into business sector propaganda in all political camps in America because it's so widespread and thorough, and conspiracy theories have always existed. I'm sure someone in ancient Greece believed the Spartans were aliens or some ****.
    Last edited by Reid; 05-23-2016 at 03:17 PM.

  23. #263
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,729
    Also back to the thread topic, polls suggest Bernie Sanders is the man who could beat Trump:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-go..._10102664.html

    But there's too much vested interest in Hillary, so I'm still about 80-90% sure we're getting a Trump vs Clinton race in the coming months.

  24. #264
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    Also back to the thread topic, polls suggest Bernie Sanders is the man who could beat Trump:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-go..._10102664.html

    But there's too much vested interest in Hillary, so I'm still about 80-90% sure we're getting a Trump vs Clinton race in the coming months.
    These type of polls don't mean much to my understanding--Clinton's been faced with attack ads for two decades, Sanders has barely been touched. The Republicans have a vested interest in not looking his way as long as he's strong against Hillary. If he were to go up against Trump in a general election and start getting hit by the full spectrum of **** that Republicans could throw at him, I think he'd crumble pretty quick.

  25. #265
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Thrawn[numbarz] View Post
    These type of polls don't mean much to my understanding--Clinton's been faced with attack ads for two decades, Sanders has barely been touched. The Republicans have a vested interest in not looking his way as long as he's strong against Hillary. If he were to go up against Trump in a general election and start getting hit by the full spectrum of **** that Republicans could throw at him, I think he'd crumble pretty quick.
    Early general election polls have a high variance, but the central limit theorem always holds. In ordinary terms, those polls aren't individually good at predicting the election outcome, but when a lot of them say the same thing, it means there is a problem. In this case it means Trump would probably beat Clinton if the election were held today.

    Sanders may or may not weather Republican criticism better than Clinton; we'll probably never know for sure. But, when you consider how unusually often Clinton makes an unwise decision that leads to a national scandal, I'm thinking she's actually earned a lot of the distrust and paranoia that's sapping her approval rating. Like her private e-mail server for state business might have been an innocent convenience, but it is certainly a stupid thing to have, and she definitely knew it was against the law. It's also a terrible idea to court the bulge bracket in 2016, especially via secret speeches of the sort that ended Romney's political career. Barring any assumption of malfeasance, the nicest thing you can say about Clinton is that she's a well-meaning goofball who accidentally finds herself in a new unethical situation every week, like if Larry David wrote House of Cards, and saying that the Republicans would have an easier time with Sanders is just a little bit of a stretch.
    Last edited by Jon`C; 05-24-2016 at 12:12 AM.

  26. #266
    And when the moment is right, I'm gonna fly a kite.

  27. #267
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    the nicest thing you can say about Clinton is that she's a well-meaning goofball who accidentally finds herself in a new unethical situation every week, like if Larry David wrote House of Cards
    This is the America I need in my life

  28. #268
    Human Computer
    Posts
    2,825
    As someone who has followed Sanders for many years, long before the country started paying attention to him, I'd have to disagree. I've seen very little to indicate that he'd crack under that sort of pressure. One of the problems with Sanders is that few Americans were paying any attention to his career, because CSPAN is boring, so they don't know much about the guy. The guy isn't a mystery to those of us that were paying attention. We've read about & watched him do battle over the years, but I doubt any of us thought we'd ever see him run for president. Warren, yes, but not Sanders. From the countless hours of videos I've seen of Sanders dealing with members of both parties, I haven't seen him get anywhere near to cracking, & I doubt that Trump would be the one to send him over the edge. He effortlessly made short work of the Paul's, for instance. Trump can't go much more extreme without being arrested. I really don't think that questioning the size of Sanders' dick or calling him a Commie is going to break him. He has dealt with that sort of **** throughout his career.
    ? :)

  29. #269
    (Still) On 13 week vacation
    LAWL

    Posts
    10,289
    Yeah, the real strength that Sanders has as a candidate and politician in general is his complete refusal to be drawn off topic.

  30. #270
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,729
    Quote Originally Posted by Thrawn[numbarz] View Post
    These type of polls don't mean much to my understanding--Clinton's been faced with attack ads for two decades, Sanders has barely been touched. The Republicans have a vested interest in not looking his way as long as he's strong against Hillary. If he were to go up against Trump in a general election and start getting hit by the full spectrum of **** that Republicans could throw at him, I think he'd crumble pretty quick.
    As far as I can tell, the attacks on Bernie are that he's an incompetent socialist and that he's a threat to everything existing. I think he's going to weather criticism pretty well, the biggest problem I see is that he can't say much about Trump other than consistent moral criticism. Which unfortunately isn't a great spectacle and doesn't appeal to our animalistic sides. I think Bernie would still win in the general election. However I'm also pretty sure he won't get nominated by the party no matter what happens, and I don't think he would continue running 3rd party and split the vote in favor of Trump, so he'll back out of the race.

    ****, this might be the first election where California actually matters.

  31. #271
    Most people don't hate Bernie Sanders, they hate Bernie Sanders' supporters.
    TAKES HINTS JUST FINE, STILL DOESN'T CARE

  32. #272
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,729
    Yeah, the same people who think black lives matter, but hate its supporters.
    Last edited by Reid; 05-25-2016 at 05:42 PM.

  33. #273

  34. #274
    Some of my best friends are Bernie Sanders supporters.

  35. #275
    So are some of mine, but as someone who grew up in poverty and who is still considered poor by most measures, the loudest Sanders supporters still come off to me as privileged and entitled. Locally, I should add. I don't watch national election coverage.
    TAKES HINTS JUST FINE, STILL DOESN'T CARE

  36. #276
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,040
    Yeah, well, Sanders is most popular among college-educated white males. So there's gonna be a lil bit of privilege there.

  37. #277
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,729
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Spruce View Post
    Only not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Spruce View Post
    So are some of mine, but as someone who grew up in poverty and who is still considered poor by most measures, the loudest Sanders supporters still come off to me as privileged and entitled. Locally, I should add. I don't watch national election coverage.
    Ah fair enough, I don't like tone arguments very much, but I suppose you're right that many Bernie supporters are vocally annoying. TBH though I don't interact with anyone who's overtly political so I don't see it in my day-to-day life. Which is weird living on a college campus. They always say I'm supposed to watch out for radical feminists and people crying about safe spaces but I haven't encountered any yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    Yeah, well, Sanders is most popular among college-educated white males. So there's gonna be a lil bit of privilege there.
    Not surprised.

  38. #278
    It's Stuart, Martha Stuart
    Posts
    7,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    Yeah, well, Sanders is most popular among college-educated white males. So there's gonna be a lil bit of privilege there.

    The non-plan of "free college" really hit home among kids grumpy about paying for college.

  39. #279
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,040
    Government-funded college education isn't a non-plan; it is done successfully in many countries, and it alleviates many stresses on youth, especially those which discourage capital formation and reproduction at healthy ages. Implementing it for America would require, though, sober multilateral discussions about the economic, social, and political forces which have made post-secondary education objectively unaffordable, and that's exactly the kind of discussion Americans are known for never having.

  40. #280
    It helps that college is more exclusive in countries that do that. And I don't think that's a bad thing, either.
    "it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •