*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

[spoonitnow]

I always thought the Bernie appeal was

(1) He talks forcefully (like Trump omg)

(2) He says things people want to hear.

(3) He has a comedic element about him that people find endearing, exemplified in how Larry David could impersonate him even though LD is least impersonating person of all time.

Yeah that's fair. None of that can cover up how he's a total fucking pussy though.

Women will forgive you for being a dick, but they'll never forgive you for being a pussy.

[Savy]

Aren't you supposed to be hitting on dykes who like math or some shit

If they existed that would be my go to type.

Made an arse out of myself last Friday so thought I'd give it a miss tonight.

[Savy]

That's a very interesting take. On the surface I don't agree, but I haven't thought much about it so that's meaningless.

No wuf it isn't I'm chatting complete and utter fucking nonsense.

[wufwugy]

No wuf it isn't I'm chatting complete and utter fucking nonsense.

That's a very interesting take. On the surface I don't agree, but I haven't thought much about it so that's meaningless.

[spoonitnow]

That's a very interesting take. On the surface I don't agree, but I haven't thought much about it so that's meaningless.

got em

[Savy]

I can't help but admire you for sticking to your message.

[wufwugy]

I can't help but admire you for sticking to your message.

That's a very interesting take. On the surface I don't agree, but I haven't thought much about it so that's meaningless.

[spoonitnow]

Let's take this to discord

Click here to join: https://discord.gg/qNtbGsd

[Poopadoop]

Rather than being a dick I mean this quite genuinely even though I'm sure you'll take offence to it. Maybe try thinking about what you should say or do that makes a difference to this happening. That isn't stupidity t's laziness & bad practise. None of which are signs of not being able to do Math. Now I'm sure these people probably don't understand the maths well enough to have a real concept of what it is they are doing wrong and why it's so bad but this is never going to be the case especially when applying stats to non-mathematical fields.

If you want to change this (which you have said you do) then you kind of need to take responsibility for this.

Correcting people is a really shit way of fixing their habits, especially when there are thousands of people doing the same thing.

I think your argument is genuine and makes a good point.

to the first bolded: I think it's unclear which it is. They can defend themselves equally well either way. They can say e.g., yes we understand but that's how it's always been done' whether they don't understand or do understand and don't give a shit. So their counter is ambiguous.

The second bolded bit is really the crux of the matter. Without going into detail, their analysis is based on the presumption that people can react to something they see by pressing a button within 1/10 of a second. Anyone who knows the basic time frame of stimulus-->neurons --> muscles knows that's (fucking) impossible. So my view is not that they're incapable of seeing this, but that they find it easier/better/whatever to base their analysis of the data on the idea that it is possible, for reasons known only to themselves, on an assumption that is silly.

third bold: In this case, I am not the one who ultimately decides if a paper gets published. So my responsibility is to tell the editor this is bullshit or this is reasonably solid. After that it's on them.

last bold: that's a perfectly good point, but reaching a wider audience isn't possible when reviewing a single paper. That requires a more general treatise of a much broader subject which both you and my colleagues agree needs to be presented to a general audience. I am one of those presenting such a treatise but nonetheless I can only deal with this specific example of foolishness in its own context at this specific time.

[Poopadoop]

Paging Nassim Taleb.

My take on Taleb is that he's a gifted mathematician who for whatever reason tried to apply his skills to a field to which they aren't suited and then got butthurt when they weren't appreciated by people in a field they weren't suited to. He then pointed out what a waste of his talent that field was and everyone knowledgeable about maths agreed and everyone else got the other message that certain fields have too much variance for anyone trying to find some predictive parameter to make a useful model.

At least I think the latter message is worth communicating to economists who would otherwise argue that they know how a butterfly flapping its wings can affect the economy.

To me this is a bit 'no shit' - something like Tolstoy saying that Math doesn't appreciate literary genius.

[wufwugy]

My take on Taleb is that he's a gifted mathematician who for whatever reason tried to apply his skills to a field to which they aren't suited and then got butthurt when they weren't appreciated by people in a field they weren't suited to. He then pointed out what a waste of his talent that field was and everyone knowledgeable about maths agreed and everyone else got the other message that certain fields have too much variance for anyone trying to find some predictive parameter to make a useful model.

I don't know this history. I just read his tweets and his articles sometimes. Can you give a nutshell of what happened?

[Poopadoop]

I don't know this history. I just read his tweets and his articles sometimes. Can you give a nutshell of what happened?

My personal synopsis of Taleb's narrative is that he went into the field of high finance for the purpose of becoming wealthy (why else would you go into high finance, not for a love of maths certainly?), realized it had limited or no benefit for a math genius (the variance outweighed the mean by a bigly amount), argued such and such with who and who, and came to the conclusion that there is a better way to explain economic vagaries than the normal distribution. That last bit in itself is a clear and worthy insight. There is no credit denied there. Absolutely the man is clever at math.

But to anyone knowledgeable in maths his contribution is not in showing the limitations of math to a chaotic system ( pretty sure Tulving managed the same argument in the 1940s, and Nash fairly soon afterwards), but in showing to people who don't understand math that doing math is fucking hard no matter how good your are at it, and if you do it wrong you can come to the wrong answer with the best of intentions.

[wufwugy]

What do you think about his stuff with GMO

[wufwugy]

Taleb has convinced me that he is worth listening to, but that doesn't mean he has convinced me that what he says is worth believing.

[wufwugy]

I love the IYI and the skin in the game thing. Some people have head in ass syndrome. It's real.

[Poopadoop]

What do you think about his stuff with GMO

Briefly and off the cuff, I think he doesn't have enough data to evaluate the likelihood of the various possibilities.

More generally, I think it's easy to imagine low-probability/high impact events that make for a nice story. We could .e.g., argue that exploring space is bad because we might run into an Evil Empire that is bent on making us all into space slaves.

His arguments work both ways because it is all based on uncertainty - in reality, observing a rare event has no impact on the probability of a similarly rare event occurring. That said, I think he has on the face of it a reasonable basis for discarding the normal curve when it comes to economics; just no reason to think that discarding the normal curve is the norm rather than an exception.

[spoonitnow]

GMOs are the shit, they've fed the fuck out of tons of people who would have starved to fucking death

[Poopadoop]

GMOs are the shit, they've fed the fuck out of tons of people who would have starved to fucking death

Yeah, something like that.

As i understand it, Taleb is pointing out catastrophe as a possible outcome of GMO because we don't understand all the variables at play and can't predict any chaotic effects that might arise out of their interactions.

It's a bit of an argument about how knowing what we know now doesn't necessarily reflect the real world because of lolvariance. But with no evidence about variance it's arguably difficult to contend we should base our decisions on the unknown possiblities which are infinite and not measurable.

I think Taleb's contribution to maths is to show that our estimates of what variance is are not as informed as we thought they were, and we shouldn't as a default dismiss models that aren't evidence-based. That leads to a bit of a kerfluffle though where we can assume any model with no evidence 'just because', whereas any reasonable model depends on what's already been observed based on the Likelihood Principle whereby the past is a reasonable predictor of the future.

[wufwugy]

Yeah, something like that.

As i understand it, Taleb is pointing out catastrophe as a possible outcome of GMO because we don't understand all the variables at play and can't predict any chaotic effects that might arise out of their interactions.

It's a bit of an argument about how knowing what we know now doesn't necessarily reflect the real world because of lolvariance. But with no evidence about variance it's arguably difficult to contend we should base our decisions on the unknown possiblities which are infinite and not measurable.

I think Taleb's contribution to maths is to show that our estimates of what variance is are not as informed as we thought they were, and we shouldn't as a default dismiss models that aren't evidence-based. That leads to a bit of a kerfluffle though where we can assume any model with no evidence 'just because', whereas any reasonable model depends on what's already been observed based on the Likelihood Principle whereby the past is a reasonable predictor of the future.

That's great. I really like having your insight into Taleb.

[wufwugy]

Funny thing* regarding Taleb, I'm like rah rah at like 2/3rds of what he says about economics but the rest is like dude needs to learn.

As a remarkably smarter guy than I am, the dude is worth a listen. But that doesn't make him perfect.



*Is it yet obvious that I start like 1/3rd of my posts with "funny thing" or "funny that" or "funny to note". What a fucking cuck**



**Which reminds me, the thread title needs changing. I have half a mind that this was Spoonitfag's master plan to get us all to post in a thread that says CUCK. It ain't good for image. It ain't good for frame.

[spoonitnow]

Funny to note that this thread is full of fucking cucks

[BananaStand]

That leads to a bit of a kerfluffle though where we can assume any model with no evidence 'just because',

RUSSIAN COLLUSION!!

THE DOCTOR IS LYING!!

TRUMP TRIED THE FIRE MUELLER WHILE HAVING A TEMPER TANTRUM

TRUMP IS STUPID

TRUMP WANTS TO FUCK HIS OWN DAUGHTER

What a kerfluffle.

[Poopadoop]

RUSSIAN COLLUSION!!

"Let's meet a Russian with some dirt on our opponent." Yep, nothing to see there.

THE DOCTOR IS LYING!!

"This big fat slob who eats garbage and never exercises is a fine specimen of a man."

Sure, seems plausible.

TRUMP TRIED THE FIRE MUELLER...

Confirmed even by Hannity, that arbiter of truth.

... WHILE HAVING A TEMPER TANTRUM

Not sure where you got this from; wasn't me.

TRUMP IS STUPID

Evidence is mixed on this one.

TRUMP WANTS TO FUCK HIS OWN DAUGHTER

Not sure if that's entirely true, but he does seem to have an unnatural interest in talking about and touching her body.

[BananaStand]

"Let's meet a Russian with some dirt on our opponent." Yep, nothing to see there.

The Russians offered information and asked for a meeting. OF COURSE YOU TAKE THE MEETING!!

DUH!!

Even if it is your intent to decline the offer, you at least listen to what it is they are offering. At the very least you might get a hint of which tree to bark up to find the dirt yourself.

The fact that the meeting happened is indicative of nothing. I'm not sure what other evidence you have to suggest there is more to see there. So it's not clear to me why you are doing so, and denying any other plausible explanation. Seems like a kerfuffle.

[BananaStand]

We know Russia offered dirt to the Trump campaign. We have absolutely no evidence to suggest that it was accepted, despite 18 months of massive efforts to find some. Also, there's even less evidence that the Trump campaign offered anything in return, which is a key element of collusion.

We know Russia SOLD dirt to the Clinton campaign, for money. That is an established fact.

The lesson in all this, is that Russia is an ass-hole. We really should be taking strong action against them. I know such and such house committee put in some sanctions or whatever, but meh. We could crush the ruble if we wanted to.

But we can't. Because the crybaby sore loser left handcuffed this president. Trump can't touch Russia with a 40 foot pole right now, so evil remains unpunished. Nice going dems.

[spoonitnow]

Russia was playing both sides, but they were playing Clinton's side much harder because [for most people] she was expected to win.

Big whoop. Same shit, different election. Happens all the time, all over the world.

[Poopadoop]

And yet despite being pure down to his toes, Trump fired one guy who was investigating him on Russia and tried to fire the next one...

So either a) he's guilty and thinks he can solve his problems by lolfiring everyone who might be able to prove he's guilty; or b) he's innocent and tried to obstruct justice because he believes the Fox and Friends narrative that loldeepstate is after him. In this scenario his only crime is that he doesn't have a clue how firing everyone in charge of investigating him makes him look guilty, and wouldn't stop the investigation anyways.

All of which kind of speaks to the point about him being dumb as a sack of burgers.

[spoonitnow]

There's no evidence that he "tried to fire the next one," just hearsay. There's also no evidence he fired the first guy because of anything to do with Russia. There's not much evidence that the first guy was even investigating him over Russia. Any assertions otherwise make you look like a clown.

[Poopadoop]

There's no evidence that he "tried to fire the next one," just heresay.

Well even Hannity's sources (eventually) confirmed it. That's good enough for me.




lol "The fake news is just trying to distract you....oh wait, it's true? Hey, there's a car crash!!"

There's also no evidence he fired the first guy because of anything to do with Russia.

There's so many alternative facts provided by Trump and others on his side as to make it seem suspicious. He says one thing, the White House Gargoyle Conway says another, the press secretary has a different excuse. Sure, whatever.

Regardless, it must have occurred to him (or someone on his team with a brain) how it would look.

There's not much evidence that the first guy was even investigating him over Russia. Any assertions otherwise make you look like a clown.

You mean apart from Comey's comments before he was fired and sworn testimony afterwards? Damn, someone needs to get logic a lawyer the way you are torturing it.

The most generous interpretation of the whole story is that Trump's ego couldn't deal with the idea that Russia helped him win, and that he's too stupid to know he can't just go around firing everyone involved to get the investigation to stop.

[spoonitnow]

I should have known better than to try to poke at it with logic. It gets cranky when you do that.

[BananaStand]

There's so many alternative facts provided by Trump and others on his side as to make it seem suspicious. He says one thing, the White House Gargoyle Conway says another, the press secretary has a different excuse. Sure, whatever.

How would it have looked if he fired Comey, and then when asked why, he answered "It's classified"

Maybe that was exactly the case, but instead he gave a different story in order to manage "optics". Someone mentioned once that's pretty important.

I think it's entirely plausible that the soon-to-be released memo about FISA abuses has Comey's name all over it. Trump seems to have been aware, long before anyone else, that he was under surveillance. Maybe he knew that Comey aided and abetted Obama's abuses of power.

If that's the case, optics be damned, Comey has to go.

How is that scenario any less plausible than one where Trump fired Comey to obstruct justice?

Seems to me that if you're the kind of person who just looks at a set of questionable circumstances, and decides to infer the worst just because you don't like the person in question, you are guilty of a kerfuffle.

[Poopadoop]

Rather than try and fail to counter your many arguments, I'm just going to give up by dropping a backhanded insult.

Wp.

[Poopadoop]

How would it have looked if he fired Comey, and then when asked why, he answered "It's classified"

Maybe that was exactly the case, but instead he gave a different story in order to manage "optics". Someone mentioned once that's pretty important.

I think it's entirely plausible that the soon-to-be released memo about FISA abuses has Comey's name all over it. Trump seems to have been aware, long before anyone else, that he was under surveillance. Maybe he knew that Comey aided and abetted Obama's abuses of power.

If that's the case, optics be damned, Comey has to go.

How is that scenario any less plausible than one where Trump fired Comey to obstruct justice?

Seems to me that if you're the kind of person who just looks at a set of questionable circumstances, and decides to infer the worst just because you don't like the person in question, you are guilty of a kerfuffle.

Oh, so now there's ANOTHER reason why he fired Comey, to add to the three or four provided at the time.

Just a perfect example of propaganda at work. The more alternative facts you can provide, the less people will know what to believe.

Goebbels would be proud.

[BananaStand]

Rather than try and fail to counter your many arguments, I'm just going to give up by dropping a backhanded insult, along with some nazi references for good measure.

Wp

[Poopadoop]

Wp

I didn't insult you, I countered your argument. But from this it seems you can't tell the difference.

[BananaStand]

I didn't insult you, I countered your argument. But from this it seems you can't tell the difference.

Sorry, I must be unclear on the definition of "insult". You referred to my argument as "propaganda" (as if yours isn't, lol), and likened me to one of the worst human rights violators in history. What do you call that?

Dismissing an argument is not the same as "countering". Try again.

[Poopadoop]

Sorry, I must be unclear on the definition of "insult". You referred to my argument as "propaganda" (as if yours isn't, lol), and likened me to one of the worst human rights violators in history. What do you call that?

Dismissing an argument is not the same as "countering". Try again.

I didn't liken you to anything. I likened the latest Fox-inspired explanation for why Trump fired Comey to a propaganda technique where one floods the situation with alternative facts in order to confuse people.

Calling your argument all kinds of shit is not the same as calling you all kinds of shit. I don't know why you try to personalize everything. Basically, in your little world, it seems anyone who doesn't agree with you is insulting you.

I guess that's where you get the idea that calling people names is a solid debating strategy.

[BananaStand]

I didn't liken you to anything. I likened the latest Fox-inspired explanation for why Trump fired Comey to a propaganda technique where one floods the situation with alternative facts in order to confuse people.

Calling your argument all kinds of shit is not the same as calling you all kinds of shit. I don't know why you try to personalize everything. Basically, in your little world, it seems anyone who doesn't agree with you is insulting you.

I guess that's where you get the idea that calling people names is a solid debating strategy.

Deflecting isn't countering either

[Poopadoop]

Deflecting isn't countering either

That's right it isn't. What's your point?

'cause mine is that we get fed a number of different stories, and as time goes on the alternate facts pile up. I pointed out how this a known propaganda technique.

Why should we take this story any more seriously than the other three or four offered before? Why provide so many different explanations in the first place?

[spoonitnow]

Deflecting isn't countering either

When you wrestle with a pig, you both get muddy, but the pig likes it.

[Savy]

When you wrestle with a pig, you both get muddy, but the pig likes it.

Watching the rumble tonight?

[BananaStand]

Why should we take this story any more seriously than the other three or four offered before?

You're exaggerating. There were only two explanations for firing Comey. And they are not mutually exclusive. Just because Trump had two good reasons for firing Comey, doesn't mean that his story is inconsistent.

[spoonitnow]

Watching the rumble tonight?

Yeah. Women over the top rope LOL

I put the over/under on injuries just from that match at 5.5.

[BananaStand]

Trump said. “And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’”

Democrats see that quote as a smoking gun. Trump admitted to firing Comey to stifle the Russia investigation.

or......alternate theory.......

If Trump did not collude with Russia, then Trump would know for sure, that an investigation would yield nothing. He would also know, for sure that no evidence of collusion exists. Therefore, Trump could conclude that Comey is conducting a politically motivated investigation with no evidence. Fire-able offense.

Then...two days later, a highly respected bi-partisan deputy attorney general made an extensive written recommendation to fire Comey based on an overwhelming lack of public confidence related to his bungling of the Hillary investigation.

A freshman communications student can tell you that the latter plays better as an "official message".

And then later, a jubilant, bombastic, and egotistical Trump couldn't help but drop a brag about HE made the decision himself based on his own evaluation of Comey's incompetence.

I'm not seeing a crime there.

The left's alternate theory is that Trump got lucky that Rosenstein wrote that memo because Trump had already made up his mind to obstruct justice. Then, in an interview with CNN Trump had a brain fart and accidentally confessed. C'mon. He's not dumb!!!

[Savy]

Yeah. Women over the top rope LOL

I put the over/under on injuries just from that match at 5.5.

I'm expecting it to be pretty crap, especially with Steph, which is a shame because the best of womens wrestling is pretty great.

I just want to see Kane win the championship, if that happens I don't care about the rest of it.

Takeover last night was brilliant too if you didn't see it, the only match I didn't think much of was Dream vs ohno and that was hardly bad.

[BananaStand]

Grown men following pro wrestling?? You brits really need better pro sports.

[Poopadoop]

You're exaggerating. There were only two explanations for firing Comey. And they are not mutually exclusive. Just because Trump had two good reasons for firing Comey, doesn't mean that his story is inconsistent.

if anything, I'm under-xagerating.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-...reasons-2017-5

That was just in the first week. Now we have the latest offering, and we're supposed to buy that. Ok, assuming that Comey was corrupt and that was the reason all along, why have all these conflicting stories about why he was fired?

At best, it suggests a WH that isn't even on the same page from the top down about even the most basic information; at worst it stinks of a deliberate spreading of misinformation.

[BananaStand]

if anything, I'm under-xagerating.

Nope. The bulleted list at the top lists 3 reasons, and the first two are the same. Trump lost confidence in Comey. Rosenstein echoed those sentiments. That's two reasons. And they do not have to be mutually exclusive.

That was just in the first week. Now we have the latest offering, and we're supposed to buy that

What latest offering? I speculated a plausible explanation as to why Trump lost confidence in Comey. That's not a new story, it's my own speculation about further details regarding the existing story.

Ok, assuming that Comey was corrupt and that was the reason all along, why have all these conflicting stories about why he was fired?

The stories do not conflict. Trump lost confidence in Comey. Why is it unfathomable to you that he is the only one who had that opinion? Maybe Comey was just shitty, and lots of people lost confidence in him. That would be a CONSISTENT story. Not a conflicting one.

At best, it suggests a WH that isn't even on the same page from the top down about even the most basic information; at worst it stinks of a deliberate spreading of misinformation.

What misinformation? Explain how both explanations for Comey's firing can't be simultaneously true.

[Poopadoop]

...

There are all kinds of reasons given in that article - recommendation from DoJ, poor handling of Hillary's email investigation, Russia investigation was a witch hunt, etc., that all changed depending on whether you were talking to Trump, Spicer, Rosenstein, or Sessions, and when.

First it was Rosenstein's idea, then Trump's, then Trump's idea and Rosenstein and Sessions confirmed it. The only way those stories don't conflict is that they're all excuses to fire someone. Then Trump says in a letter to Comey "I'm doing this on the basis of their recommendation." and three days later tells Lester Holt it was all his idea and he was going to fire him all along. I mean the guy can't even keep his own story straight. No wonder he goes through so many press secretaries. They're all hurting their brain trying to explain all of his contradictory statements.

You can argue all of those reasons are true (and on top of it zomgFISA), and they just fucked up in how they presented it, but it doesn't matter. Comey was investigating Trump over Russia and Trump fired him. Can you at least acknowledge how bad that looks, and why it makes people suspicious of all these other explanations for the whys and hows? And then add to that the fact he tried to fire Mueller too?

[spoonitnow]

I'm expecting it to be pretty crap, especially with Steph, which is a shame because the best of womens wrestling is pretty great.

I just want to see Kane win the championship, if that happens I don't care about the rest of it.

Takeover last night was brilliant too if you didn't see it, the only match I didn't think much of was Dream vs ohno and that was hardly bad.

Candice LeRae got to make her official NXT debut being scrappy as fuck. I love her.

Also, you neeeeeed to watch Tanahashi vs. Suzuki from night before last for the IC belt if you haven't. It was incredible.

[Poopadoop]

Actually, I'm starting to think Trump just wants to fire everybody all the time, and maybe it has nothing to do with what they're up to.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...osenstein.html

[BananaStand]

There are all kinds of reasons given in that article

No, just two.

recommendation from DoJ

Reason 1

, poor handling of Hillary's email investigation, Russia investigation was a witch hunt,

Those are both supporting arguments for Reason #2: Trump lost confidence in Comey. That's a reason that demands supporting arguments. If you perceive those supporting arguments as "conflicting" accounts of events, then you're being stubborn, or stupid. Which is it Poop?

etc., that all changed depending on whether you were talking to Trump, Spicer, Rosenstein, or Sessions, and when.

No it didn't. Everyone except Trump himself towed the line on Reason #1

First it was Rosenstein's idea, then Trump's, then Trump's idea and Rosenstein and Sessions confirmed it. The only way those stories don't conflict is that they're all excuses to fire someone.

Those stories absolutely do not conflict.

Then Trump says in a letter to Comey "I'm doing this on the basis of their recommendation." and three days later tells Lester Holt it was all his idea and he was going to fire him all along.

What's hard to understand? The Rosenstein memo gave Trump the official cover he needed to do what he wanted to do anyway. Trump bragging to Lester holt that he was smart enough to recognize Comey's incompetence without Rosensteins input doesn't conflict with any accounts of events, nor is it indicative of the slightest wrongdoing.

I mean the guy can't even keep his own story straight. No wonder he goes through so many press secretaries. They're all hurting their brain trying to explain all of his contradictory statements.

The do not contradict. Trump and Rosenstein agreeing with each other is not indicative of a conspiracy. You're delusional.

You can argue all of those reasons are true (and on top of it zomgFISA), and they just fucked up in how they presented it, but it doesn't matter.

Apparently it matters very much to you, because it's a pillar of your assessment that Trump is corrupt.

Comey was investigating Trump over Russia and Trump fired him. Can you at least acknowledge how bad that looks, and why it makes people suspicious of all these other explanations for the whys and hows?

It only looks bad if you're willing to entertain wild theories of collusion without evidence. It only looks bad if you believe that Trump is dumb enough to believe that firing Comey would stop the Russia investigation. A guilty Trump firing Comey to stifle the Russia investigation simply doesn't hold water. There's no way Trump is that dumb. There's no way that someone wouldn't have explained it to him even if he was that dumb.

Can you at least acknowledge that if Trump was guilty, he would do everything he could to avoid appearing so? Can you at least acknowledge that if Trump is actually innocent, then he must conclude that Comey's investigation is politically motivated, and therefore Comey can not be trusted? Can you at least acknowledge that in that circumstance, Comey has to go regardless of the optics??

And then add to that the fact he tried to fire Mueller too?

But he ultimately didn't. Trump has done a lot of stuff that looked like political suicide, but somehow worked in his favor. I cringed when he claimed he wanted to ban all muslim immigration. Hard to not call that racist. But when taken in complete context, you could see that he wasn't expressing his views, he was merely opening negotiations.

Trump cited some legitimate, and some not so legitimate conflicts that Meuller might have. The most compelling is that Meuller was denied the FBI job after Comey was fired. That's not just being turned down for a job. That's a man being denied the opportunity to reach the pinnacle of his life's work. It's not unfathomable that he might have an axe to grind.

Sure, it would have looked bad. But Trump has recovered easily from worse. So it's not nearly as stupid as you're making it sound. He says incendiary things and the media hates him. Despite that he won an election and logged a very successful first year. The guy has shown to be practically invincible. If he really didn't trust Mueller to not go witch-hunting, why wouldn't Trump think he could replace him.

[Poopadoop]

Sure, it would have looked bad.

Glad we agree on something.

[spoonitnow]

I'm expecting it to be pretty crap, especially with Steph, which is a shame because the best of womens wrestling is pretty great.

I just want to see Kane win the championship, if that happens I don't care about the rest of it.

Takeover last night was brilliant too if you didn't see it, the only match I didn't think much of was Dream vs ohno and that was hardly bad.

lol rousey, aka steph's buddy

[BananaStand]

Actually, I'm starting to think Trump just wants to fire everybody all the time, and maybe it has nothing to do with what they're up to.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...osenstein.html

When these sources have names....then come talk to me.

[BananaStand]

Also, I need it explained to me how Trump firing Comey, or considering firing others, is an indication of his guilt.

If he was guilty, he would be doing everything possible to lay low, and AVOID the appearance of interference. The only way that's not the case is if he has the intelligence of a piece of toast. Anyone with an IQ of 9 would know that the optics of such a move would stir the pot, and it wouldn't end the investigation anyway.

On the other hand, if Trump is innocent, then he would know for sure that these people are engaged in a fruitless investigation. Whatever they are doing, it is not going to uncover any evidence of Russian collusion, because Trump knows for sure that he didn't collude with Russia. From Trump's point of view, whatever they are doing must be outside the scope of the investigation. Whatever they uncover must be the result of a witch hunt coordinated by the opposition. This theory is supported by the fact that anonymous sources are leaking suggestive, but ultimately meaningless, garbage in order to color the media discourse against Trump.

If you're Trump....are you just gonna let all that happen? Are you really gonna not-fire people because of lol-optics??

Trump's behavior seems to be strong evidence against the existence of Russian collusion, not the other way around. And I really can't believe that there are people in this world, and in this thread, who consider themselves intelligent, and still don't get this.

[CoccoBill]

The Orange Ocular Effect. Since Trump is smart he can't have done anything stupid.

[BananaStand]

The Orange Ocular Effect. Since Trump is smart he can't have done anything stupid.

"anything's possible" is not a compelling reason to spend 2 years and triple-digit millions of tax payer dollars on a political stunt whose sole purpose is to undermine a duly elected president.

I posed perfectly plausible explanations for the alleged impropriety, and I posed compelling and salient challenges to the theories of guilt.

The response: "your brain has been turned orange"

News Flash!!! That bullshit is WHY Trump won. So keep it up.

[Savy]

lol rousey, aka steph's buddy

Quite enjoyed the PPV. Kami & AJ are all fantastic but that crying about authority storyline is getting a little boring and it's only leading to another sami v ko match I've seen too many times as much as I think they're both great. Only match that didn't really do anything for me was the raw tag match.

It'll be interesting to see where the whole Rousey thing goes, seems strange that she was there but not in the rumble

[BananaStand]

Quite enjoyed the PPV. Kami & AJ are all fantastic but that crying about authority storyline is getting a little boring and it's only leading to another sami v ko match I've seen too many times as much as I think they're both great. Only match that didn't really do anything for me was the raw tag match.

It'll be interesting to see where the whole Rousey thing goes, seems strange that she was there but not in the rumble

Like sands through the hourglass.....

Please tell me you didn't actually pay for this. What does it cost nowadays? $50 or $60 right?

When I was in college my friends and I would always make a big deal out of watching the PPV's, but one of my buddies had an illegal cable box that got it for free. We knew, even then, that fake fighting wasn't worth paying money to see.

[spoonitnow]

Quite enjoyed the PPV. Kami & AJ are all fantastic but that crying about authority storyline is getting a little boring and it's only leading to another sami v ko match I've seen too many times as much as I think they're both great. Only match that didn't really do anything for me was the raw tag match.

It'll be interesting to see where the whole Rousey thing goes, seems strange that she was there but not in the rumble

Rousey signed a full-time deal.

[spoonitnow]

Like sands through the hourglass.....

Please tell me you didn't actually pay for this. What does it cost nowadays? $50 or $60 right?

Less than $10 a month for their entire library, including live PPVs.

We knew, even then, that fake fighting wasn't worth paying money to see.

I guess you never watch movies or television shows like Game of Thrones.

[Poopadoop]

I posed perfectly plausible explanations for the alleged impropriety, and I posed compelling and salient challenges to the theories of guilt.

Your explanations are only plausible on the assumption that Trump is innocent and has the capacity for some measure of self-control. Given the lack of evidence for these premises, there's no reason to find the rest of your arguments compelling.

News Flash!!! That bullshit is WHY Trump won. So keep it up.

Trump won because people accused his followers of being mindless sheep? Lol, ok then.

[BananaStand]

Your explanations are only plausible on the assumption that Trump is innocent and has the capacity for some measure of self-control. Given the lack of evidence for these premises, there's no reason to find the rest of your arguments compelling

The alternate explanation assumes that Trump is guilty of collusion. It assumes that the man who has accumulated immense wealth, achieved celebrity status, and became a wildly successful politician is also monumentally stupid. It assumes that the living icon of business success fails to grasp public relations and political optics in ways that are obvious even to ordinary citizens. And it assumes that efforts to conceal his crime were undermined by an accidental confession to Lester Holt.

Given the lack of evidence for these premises, there's no reason to find that version of events compelling.

Trump won because people accused his followers of being mindless sheep? Lol, ok then.

Trump won because open minded independent thinkers were put off by being called mindless sheep whenever they deviated from the preferred progressive narrative.

[Poopadoop]

The alternate explanation assumes that Trump is guilty of collusion. It assumes that the man who has accumulated immense wealth, achieved celebrity status, and became a wildly successful politician is also monumentally stupid.

Actually, my present preferred hypothesis is that he doesn't like the investigation because it's going to turn up dirt on him that otherwise wouldn't come to light. Money-laundering with Russians is one possibility, given his history of shady dealings (Trump University being the classic example). The guy clearly hasn't been flying straight in his business life and he doesn't want to be investigated under any pretense.

It assumes that the living icon of business success fails to grasp public relations and political optics in ways that are obvious even to ordinary citizens. And it assumes that efforts to conceal his crime were undermined by an accidental confession to Lester Holt.

No, it assumes he lacks an internal censor and/or thinks he can get away with anything like he has his whole life.

Trump won because open minded independent thinkers were put off by being called mindless sheep whenever they deviated from the preferred progressive narrative.

First, referring to yourself as open-minded may be being a bit generous. Of your ~1800 posts here, none of them have ever suggested there's much if any flexibility in your opinions.

Second, if that is true of you, don't assume you're representative of his supporters.

[Poopadoop]

Trump won because open minded independent thinkers were put off by being called mindless sheep whenever they deviated from the preferred progressive narrative.

Also, it 's just a lame argument to begin with. It's like saying the people who voted for Hillary did it 'cause they were sick of being called cucks. Iow, you're putting the cart before the horse.

[BananaStand]

Also, it 's just a lame argument to begin with. It's like saying the people who voted for Hillary did it 'cause they were sick of being called cucks. Iow, you're putting the cart before the horse.

You're missing the point.

If you're not for open borders, you're a racist.

If you don't support feminism (in its current militant form), you're a misogynist

If you're for tax cuts, you hate poor people

If you're in the middle class and you're upset about your health care costs going up 5,000%, you're an elitist.

If you're successful it's because you were unfairly privileged.

If you accept that the first amendment also applies to conservative messages, you're a fucking fascist.

And if you don't fall in line, you're hateful, selfish, entitled, and bigoted.

We had that for eight years under Obama, and it really started before that in the 90's under Clinton. And the people who got lumped into each group all had one thing in common.....they are the people who pay the bills in this country. Trump tapped into their anger and offered them a candidate who refused to be politically correct if it meant sacrificing sound capitalist policies.

Yet there are many many people on the left, still mindlessly marching in step with the progressive drumbeat of identity politics. And in a stunning example of irony, point to the opposition as 'mindless sheep' bowing to the manipulations of racists, misogynists, and the rest of the deplorables. That inability to engage in an intellectual fact-based debate has weakened the political message of the democratic party.

And that's how Trump got elected.

[spoonitnow]

Trump won because open minded independent thinkers were put off by being called mindless sheep whenever they deviated from the preferred progressive narrative.

There's a pretty significant amount of evidence to support this.

[Poopadoop]

Sounds like you guys are real victims.

[BananaStand]

Actually, my present preferred hypothesis is that he doesn't like the investigation because it's going to turn up dirt on him that otherwise wouldn't come to light. Money-laundering with Russians is one possibility, given his history of shady dealings (Trump University being the classic example). The guy clearly hasn't been flying straight in his business life and he doesn't want to be investigated under any pretense.

That still assumes that a very stable genius capable of the successes that Trump has enjoyed, is also stupid enough to ignore the fact that firing one guy wouldn't stop the investigation, and that it looks bad.

Whether he's guilty of Russian collusion, or of something else, it doesn't change the fact that he would have nothing to gain by firing Comey. It doesn't change the fact that firing Comey without a good reason would be stupid.

No, it assumes he lacks an internal censor and/or thinks he can get away with anything like he has his whole life.

If that's the case, why is he so worried about Comey? Does not compute. He can't be simultaneously paranoid about the FBI investigation AND confident enough to confess on television.

First, referring to yourself as open-minded may be being a bit generous. Of your ~1800 posts here, none of them have ever suggested there's much if any flexibility in your opinions.

Try using facts or logic to change my mind, not the sensational speculations of failing newspapers.

[BananaStand]

Sounds like you guys are real victims.

I'm white, male, middle class, educated, and my penis is huge.

I am everything the left hates, and their war against me has finally come to an end.

[Poopadoop]

That still assumes that a very stable genius capable of the successes that Trump has enjoyed, is also stupid enough to ignore the fact that firing one guy wouldn't stop the investigation, and that it looks bad.

Whether he's guilty of Russian collusion, or of something else, it doesn't change the fact that he would have nothing to gain by firing Comey. It doesn't change the fact that firing Comey without a good reason would be stupid.

So when Nixon did it, that proved he was too dumb to be president?

[Poopadoop]

I'm white, male, middle class, educated, and my penis is huge.

I am everything the left hates, and their war against me has finally come to an end.

The left hates your penis? LOL

[BananaStand]

Deputy FBI Director, and former acting Director Andrew McCabe took "terminal leave" today. Basically burning up all his vacation time before he's officially allowed to retire in March.

While he was investigating Hillary Clinton, Clinton and her allies donated some $700K to McCabe's wife's senate campaign.

And now a memo detailing corruption at the highest levels of law enforcement is set to be released and McCabe seems to be taking every precaution against getting fired and losing his benefits.

What's your "preferred hypothesis" on this one Poop?

[Poopadoop]

Try using facts or logic to change my mind

You already know the facts so there's no point trying really.