Printable View
That's very kind of him and he deserves praise for it. I don't know the guy and I don't assume he goes around IRL insulting people. I can only comment on what I've seen here , and very little of that has been other than obnoxious douchery.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Respect is a two-way street mate. If you're getting it but you're not giving it, then you're doing it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I wonder how many people STILL think Zimmerman's white or that Trayvon didn't double back from the front stoop of where he was saying to attack him.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You just want some of this albino gorilla dick that makes dyke pussy wet.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Well now that MadMojoMonkey is done jerking me off, I guess I'll actually read your post here and give a response.
I've been here almost 12 and a half years. The commune has always been about a bunch of poker players talking shit and carrying on. If you take it any more seriously than that, then you're doing it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'd say this is a weakness of wufwugy's, and I can certainly say that he's taken significant strides in shoring it up inside of the past 18 months. Your entire position is an emotional one, so reasoned arguments are useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
They shouldn't care if I'm a nice person IRL or not. I'm not a nice person IRL anyway. I've never claimed to be. Moreover, giving a shit about whether someone else is nice or not is some real Bernie Sanders-level cuck shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And you've called me 2x-3x more names than I've ever called you. To be fair, I understand why: It's because I don't respond to any of the other list of standard liberal tactics you've tried to go through.
I'm not sure how that's a problem for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If you want to summarize the whole thing, it's this: You have this idea of certain virtues like being nice, being fair, being equal, not offending anyone and being a victim. Your worldview centers around wishing those virtues were the most important things in reality. I don't pretend that they are, and you don't know how to handle that inside of your worldview because I don't respond to the typical tools that people like you want to use to keep people in line. That's when you throw your hands up and say, "He's just a douche!"
Depends on if they REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEspect facts or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
What is the weakness?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Trying to use logic and reasonable discussion instead of memes and bullying.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Also, I added a couple of edits to the above.
The mere presence of his raw, American, alpha-male awesomeness is insult to all cucks in eye-shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm not telling you who to like. General douchery doesn't bother me. Voluntary ignorance bothers me.
I had a real problem with this during the primary of Titanium Ted vs. El Blumpfo, or more like after Trump won.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
It took me maybe two months to get over it. There was some base to it, like I was always going to support the Republican in the general election no matter what since in my estimation there is a zero percent chance of increasing individual freedom by a Democrat administration (except by accident).
But the more active factors were that I told myself that I wanted to learn how such a dickface as Trump could convince so many people he was the bees knees. So I sought out explanations. Mainly I read Scott Adams and The_Donald for a few months. Adams made some highly factual and logical points that made me see things differently, and some of the funny memery at T_D softened me up. Nobody on the internet laughs at themselves as well as the Trump people. We all know Trump is ridiculous.
So, I say to anytime somebody wants to develop, the key is to actively admit openness to it in the first place, and to expose the self to the community and apologetics of the counter view.
Ya it is a bit sad that he shows you all kinds of respect in an attempt to get some of it back. And you just keep pulling the football away Lucy-style and he keeps wanting to think someday you'll stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Talking shit and expressing views with little to back them up is one thing. You and your buddy banana aren't doing that; you're just abusing everyone who disagrees with you. Big difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
YOU would say that, most other people just see it as someone who's got some decency.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
So you can't reason with someone who doesn't think the way you do because in your mind they aren't thinking clearly, but are just going on emotions. Because if they were being reasonable they would agree with whatever you say. Sorry but that seems a wee bit arrogant.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Kinda not really the point. Society has norms for how decent people talk to each other. You don't have to accept those norms, but if you ignore those norms then you can't get butthurt when people call you a douche.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Being subtle with how you insult people doesn't change the fact that you're doing it; it just gives you an out to make nonsense arguments like this. I guess you feel that makes you clever in a kind of lawyerly way where you can point out the times you've been directly called a name, whereas all of your insults have been indirect and therefore you can claim they weren't aimed at anyone in particular, when everyone can see they really were. Lol, what a way to spend your energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Ok, I guess you just get put on the ignore list then until you actually have something worth contributing to the discussion. Glad it doesn't bother you.
The bolded right here pretty much explains what went on in your head imo. The rest is just the logical conclusion of that process.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I agree those are the most pivotal.
The base frame makes the final interpretation, roughly speaking.
You got me all wrong, here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I've only showed him exactly 1 kind of respect*, and it's only to help you understand his and my history and to put your response in context.
IDGAF one bit whether or not he respects me. I'm slightly amused to find that I have a form of respect for him... mostly in a "who'd'a thunk it!" kind of way.
I don't "want" anything for or from spoon aside from his continued professional attitude toward modding on this forum.
I'm joking around quite a lot in these posts. I assume those who know me know my tone neither includes the word cuck in any context, nor does it use the word awesome without sarcasm when talking about spoon's ego.
*IDK what that means, but it sounded cool. That's what we do here, right?
This is why you and I are okay, but other people and I are not okay. You can handle it because you care about being awesome, doing awesome shit and always trying to get better. Other people can't handle it because they're too busy trying to collect victim points.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
They do not happen to the world. The world happens to them.
You just want some of this albino monkey dick that makes dyke pussy wet.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
If we're all having a big circle jerk you can all say some nice things about me too.
Have you read some of his posts on sex and relationships lately??Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
He's just using you for your money
I remember that one time you said I was "a nice guy" when some noob was giving me lip in the BC. That was nice of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
You used to be all like this:
https://www.staples-3p.com/s7/is/ima..._sc7?$splssku$
Now you're more like this:
https://memegenerator.net/img/instan...am-smiling.jpg
You're gay as fuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Hey so just in case you fucktards don't realize this, your facial features are strongly correlated to which side of the political spectrum you're drawn to, suggesting a very serious genetic component.
When you tie that to conservatives being more attractive and the genetic components involved in that, it shows who's made to fuck and who's made to cuck.
Well that's nonsense, but your political orientation is a trait you're more likely to pass on to your children than most physical traits and you might be confusing causation and correlation.
It's not nonsense. Here's one example:Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
(Source)Quote:
A.I. can detect the sexual orientation of a person based on one photo, research shows
The Stanford University study found that machines had a far superior "gaydar" when compared to humans.
The machine intelligence tested in the research could correctly infer between gay and straight men 81 percent of the time, and 74 percent of the time for women.
And I'm not confusing causation and correlation.
"While a person's "grooming style" also factored in to the computer algorithm, essentially suggesting gay women appeared more masculine and vice versa."
A) That's a cool result.
B)I wonder how well it works across cultures.I wonder how long until it can tell you 3 generations of your heritage and whether or not each of them were gay, too.
wowzers, could you possibly find a less useful source?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
yes, you are.Quote:
And I'm not confusing causation and correlation.
Wild speculation, but I'm gonna say that percentage drops significantly if you use the cast of Jersey Shore as test subjects.Quote:
The machine intelligence tested in the research could correctly infer between gay and straight men 81 percent of the time, and 74 percent of the time for women.
The only reference to political views I could find was this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...eliefs-IQ.html
Was that your source?Quote:
Dr Kosinski claims computers could be used to detect political beliefs and IQ
And this was your conclusion:
?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Here's something mildly interesting:
Any phrenologic examination based on images requires topographical analyses. Topographical analyses based on images without knowing the exact angle of light source is a shitshow even in multi-scopic analyses. If They did have a proven methodology to analyse topography based on monoscopic sources without knowing the angle(s) of the light source(s), I'd want to know everything about it because I know some people who would lose their shit if this was possible. Forget about gaydar, that's a billion dollar algorithm if it exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Thankfully the 20% advantage in IQ points libs possess makes it easy for them to see that the 3% cons advantage in looks is so small as to be virtually meaningless. And that's before they account for the fact it came from testing political candidates and not the general population, which makes it even more meaningless.
Wuf, I think you're showing a level of critical self-awareness there that the person who sees himself as your mentor may find distressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
This is exemplary in illustrating how a person who sees himself as successful (which i can gather you do) likes to take the credit for that success, and by logical extension, thinks anyone who doesn't enjoy the same level of success is mostly if not wholly responsible for their own fate.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
This is the kind of thinking I had early in life. And then I turned six and realized luck actually does play a part.
The difference between winners and losers in life is not about where they end up. It's about their ability to distinguish internal and external effects on their life. Winners recognize what they can influence and take steps to do so. They also recognize what they can't influence and accept it as part of a life. Losers fail at one or the other (or both) of these tasks. Both types can end up as 'successful' or 'unsuccessful' (however one might want to define those terms) due to the combination of their own actions and random chance.
But the idea that you can be a total champion and still fail, or be a total fuckup and still succeed doesn't sit well with successful people, so they often resort to arguments such as the above. OTOH, unsuccessful people often go to the other extreme and blame everything but themselves.
I don't know about all this, but I imagine the AI is categorising certain facial features and measurements like the size of the nose and the distance between the eyes and whatnot. So I wouldn't be surprised if the AI did possess some gaydar - like abilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I'm also not surprised at seeing a tenuous link being drawn between this and the other tenuous link between a weak effect of political orientation and attractiveness in political candidates.
More generally, before criticising someone for inferring causation from correlation, it seems important to understand whether the correlation actually exists in fact or whether it exists mainly in the tattered logic of that person's own head.
Does anyone else find it slightly dubious how wuf is getting so much credit for abandoning libtard policies through rational thought and fact based analysis......by people who still embrace libtard policies and deny any rational thought or fact based analysis that would change their mind.
When's your epiphany coming guys?
Moving on....
How about if he instead said "The world doesn't owe you a living". What does that illustrate professor?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You can do eye/nose/mouth distance. But not with a high degree of certainty. Size of nose or width of chin, as stated in the article, should be near impossible. But it's not like that's close the the only problem that study has, if it's even publicly available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I would be very surprised tho if the algorithm used for the study actually dealt with physiological features and not just levels of flamboyancy which would be a lot easier to detect.
Yeah, my bad. lolQuote:
More generally, before criticising someone for inferring causation from correlation, it seems important to understand whether the correlation actually exists in fact or whether it exists mainly in the tattered logic of that person's own head.
Like I've already pointed out. Spoons source is most likely the title of a Daily Mail article which he misread.
The facial recognition software isn't categorizing things like a human would. It's examining the color values of groups of pixels using various filters and algorithms. It's not comparing nose size and distance between the eyes, it's comparing the colors and patterns of pixels, which is a subtle difference that bears stating. It doesn't know what or whom is gay until it is fed a sample set of pictures and told which is which to begin with. Once that process is seeded, you can start to ask it which of those 2 piles it would sort a new picture into. Often it's not too good at first, so you seed it more and more until it starts to show reliable results.
There is always variability in the seeding process, which can be hard to quantify. The sample set of pictures may well need to be all taken with identical lighting and camera work in order for the program to function... at first... but the advances in AI are coming so fast that it's not clear if this will continue to be necessary... just seed it more and more pictures with different lighting and telling it which pile to sort those pictures into. Eventually, hopefully, it will be able to sort the pictures no matter what the lighting.
Who knows if this is a fluke or if it can be improved upon, though. If we told it to determine the height of a person based on a photo of their face, maybe it can and maybe it can't. I'd guess the 2 are unrelated, but that could mean the relation is beneath my threshold of sensitivity to relate them. Perhaps if I was more keenly observant of someone's pore-spacing, I'd realize that it's directly correlated to height.
So, has anyone mentioned a practical use for this 'gaydar machine'?
Investor scamming would be my best guess.
Not sure if I'm misreading you, but you can definitely teach it what an eye, a mouth, a nose... looks like and then let it tell you the relative distance. Smartphones and webcams can already do that. Facebook does it (or did it) to auto-tag people in pictures.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I wouldn't mind reading the paper if it's available anywhere, but unless this is verified by independent researches I'm not giving it too much credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
No.Quote:
The Stanford University study, which is set to be published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and was first reported in The Economist...
Glad we agree on something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Spoiler alert on the result of that:Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Spoiler:TRIGGERED
There is some concern that it could be used to try to out people who would fall into the LGBTQ+ camp for the purposes of rounding up and throwing them into concentration camps or similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It's probably only a disagreement due to poorly defined terms between us.
It's a pedantic point to say that a computer doesn't recognize eyes or noses, it only recognizes that a certain pattern of pixel colors gets assigned a certain identifier.
As a human using the program, it's common to assert it recognizes eyes, because that's what you want it to do and it can reliably draw a box around eyes, given any picture with eyes in it.
However, the computer isn't identifying eyes... that's a human thing... computers just sort things according to an algorithm, but don't "recognize" anything. They merely follow instructions which gives the user a compelling illusion to support "recognizing."
A computer doesn't know the alphabet. It creates electrical signals which show me a picture which looks to me like a letter of the alphabet when I press a button on its keyboard, but the computer is just changing the color and brightness of pixels, without any recognition or cognition of how that appears to me. The only reason I can make sense of the output is because some wise computer designer or software designer thought it would be prudent to show me what I expect to be shown.
You weren't kidding about the "pedantic" part.
https://osf.io/fk3xr/
tl;dr
Interesting to note the study has been withheld from publication while the APA figures out if it's ethical or not, despite the fact that Stanford U already said it was using APA guidelines. Apparently it's caused a bit of a kerfuffle among certain groups. Irony is 'lol open science' anyone can see it in its final form anyways.
Just from glancing thru it, saw this bit here. My guess from this is that the AI works by parsing out masculine and feminine facial features, and when a man is too feminine he's classified as gay and v/v.
Quote:
The results show that the faces of gay men were more feminine and the faces of lesbians were more masculine
than those of their respective heterosexual counterparts.
Most gay men have straight fathers. Presumably, alot of them share similar facial features. I wonder how the gaydar machine would do if it was fed a bunch of pictures from the same family.
Was that addressed in the study?
I just got an idea for a machine that predicts homosexuality based on using words like "kerfuffle"Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Dunno, didn't really read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
My understanding tho is that gay-ism is correlated with hormone levels - testosterone, estrogen being the main ones - for masculinity/femininity. When you're straight you have the appropriate levels of hormone for your sex, when you're gay you're out of balance. The hormones do all kinds of things besides causing the physical diffs between men and women (like face structure, muscle mass, fat distribution, etc.) but to personality differences as well (like making men physically aggressive and women relatively timid). So, if your dad is straight and you are gay, the differences in hormones might make you look like a gay (feminized) version of your dad, basically.
As a member of the LGBTQ+ community, it's a legitimate concern for a lot of people to be afraid of being outed, rounded up and thrown off the side of fucking buildings in places like the Middle East where it's illegal to be anything but straight and cisgender.
Crimes intentionally targeting members of the LGBTQ+ community for being members of the LGBTQ+ community happen basically everywhere, but in situations where the law of the land encourages it, it's a completely different ballgame in terms of frequency, severity and lack of consequences to the perpetrators.
I've read it a few times, and this is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Tie-ins to the drop in testosterone in men in general are interesting topics of discussion as well.
You went from saying you don't have a better source than an nbc article, quoting the paper hasn't been released yet, to saying you've read the paper "a few times" in the span of 90 minutes.
I said I didn't have a better source for the claim than a Stanford study. I apologize for any confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Whether it's been released or not has no bearing on whether you can read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Less than 50 pages isn't that much. I'm sorry if you're a slow reader. I mean shit, I write between 10 and 15 pages MLA before lunch almost daily.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Oh, so if that wasn't a lie, can you point me to where it says my facial features very strongly correlate to my politic orientation, suggesting a "very serious genetic component"?
Id also like an answer to this. Also, how is it that gay features are hormonal, but politically-telling features are genetic?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I never said that source said your facial features very strongly correlate to your political orientation, nor did I say that source suggested a very serious genetic component to same.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I did say that the source was an example of how the concept of AI being able to detect similar characteristics when you said "that's nonsense" in order to spark a wider range of discussion than a non-stop political circlejerk.
Feel free to send further questions directly to Michal Kosinski.
Your hormone profile is largely determined by genetics. That's why so many liberals [who have fathers] have fathers who are pussies.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So this is fake news?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
You simply cannot ever admit when you're wrong, can you?
I gave you a source that you can contact over that.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
You mean the source that Poop linked?
Where is your source that facial features are strongly correlated to political orientation?
I think the link he may have mentally inserted here is that gay people are more likely to be liberal, therefore if you look gay you aren't attractive to the opposite sex and ergo you aren't going to be having straight sex. And then from there, the logical conclusion is that you have a mate of the other sex and you enjoy watching them getting fucked by someone else, because all gay people are closet voyeuristic heterosexuals/ emotional masochists.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
And then, because genes are inherited, whatever gay people manage to procreate while they're watching their partner have hetero sex are more likely to have gay kids who are also, through the same chain of reasoning, cucks.
Not only that, but the very weak relationship between attractiveness and political orientation in candidates running for election is generalizable to the entire population based on 'something something, that's what I want to believe'.
So you see how it all ties together in a nice neat package.
Well thanks for spelling that out for me.
I feel like I'm having a particularly slow day today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
This may have been lost in the edits since I had to step away for a few moments.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Did you learn about this by talking directly to Michael Kosinski, the author of the paper?
Yeah we run trains on fat chicks on the weekends behind Taco Bell.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I am not a fan of Trump's new chairman for the Federal Reserve. This could be Trump's biggest mistake. I don't think it will be because the chairperson of the Fed doesn't set policy; instead the consensus of academic economists does. But on the surface the new Fed chairman doesn't seem to understand that shifts in aggregate demand are essentially controlled by monetary policy. This is one big reason I wanted Cruz instead of Trump. Cruz was the only politician I heard make public statements that actually got monetary policy within the realm of correct.
My sanguine view is that Trump has put this person in the Fed for the purpose of making positive movement on the financial regulation side of the Fed's duties instead of influencing monetary policy. That would be fine.
My sanguine view is that the confirmation bias can be overcome.
So the Democrats agreed to re-open the government in exchange for flimsy promises from Republicans. McConnell agreed to consider DACA legislation in the Senate, at the same time Ryan is saying "the house has made no such promise".
I thought it would be a really shitty move if the Repubs went and pulled the rug out after they got what they wanted. That would give the Dems alot of firepower to cast blame and ramp up the rhetoric for 2018 midterm elections.
Dems promised a wall in exchange for DACA legislation. All they had to do was wait for the repubs to welch. Then I wake up this morning and see that Schumer decided to welch first. "Thanks for re-opening the government. We're gonna hold you to your promise on DACA. Oh, and by the way, we were just kidding about the wall"
What the fuckety fuck????
What are you thinking of?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Dreamers lolQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Sounds more like somebody needs to wake the fuck up.
Only 90s kids will remember this one
http://i.magaimg.net/img/2g27.jpg
She was so adorable.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
They really did everything they could to lose that election.
North Korea calls for reunification with South Korea
https://news.sky.com/story/north-kor...korea-11221519
LOL IS THERE NOTHING THIS MAN CANNOT FUCKING DO, GODDAMN
peaceful and beloved kim wants to unify with south korea because he's afraid blumpf will accidentally confuse the red nuclear button with ivanka's shithole.
And we're only one year in. What the fuck will he do in the next seven? Jesus Christ.
He's so good it's scary, but here's the really scary part: The professional politicians that have been voted in for decades have rarely been anywhere near this effective.
I really only ever hear two arguments for open borders. It's either...
1) I have a Nicaraguan pool boy and he's the hardest working dude I know!
or
2) My great-great grand pappy came over on a boat from [some european shithole] in 1917 and everything was great!
The first I can dismiss as a sample size fail. The latter, I really need explained to me. Do people really think that's the same as what's happening today? Do they really not see the difference??
I really hope this woman has her car stolen by an immigrant.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/us/im...rnd/index.html
Maybe my favorite gif
http://i.imgs.fyi/img/2gky.gif
Because it looks like he's a total jerk who just pushes his way to the front. But a deeper analysis shows that is the opposite of what happens. But even when you know the details why it still looks like he just knocking the fool aside. Hilarious.
I remember that whole KERFLUFFLE. That shit was hilarious on every level.
People who want open borders are just naive and think that all the horror stories about immigrants is fake news spread by racists.
It's a default position for anti-racists who don't want to actually think things through for themselves.
Was it hard to keep that one holstered for this long?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Careful man. If the US ever succumbs to this socialist nonsense, you probably won't be able to afford to live in the UK anymore. Then you'll be knocking at the border of some shithole telling them "don't believe all the horror stories about immigrants"Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...egal-team.html
Why is this a story??
I know why it's a story, but I'm more interested in hearing your theory for why it's a story.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Oh wait, scratch that. Actually, I'm not.
Edit: Ok, lemme try to explain. First, see if you can spot the parallels between then and now.
https://timeline.com/saturday-night-...n-1f7c2565c0d8
You THINK you know why it's a story because you can't distinguish between facts and spin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The idea of firing Meuller wasn't just conjured up organically in the mind of a madman.
That's what the story is suggesting. If you go to CNN's webpage, they've pretty much dispensed with reporting on the facts, and their headlines on this subject all say "Analysis". Which is a fancy journalism term for "spin"
The idea of firing Meuller was batted about by alot of people. The conflicts have been highlighted by all sorts of pundits. It was a major talking point in national political discourse and still is.
So why is it so unfathomable that Trump considered it, and talked about it with his advisers?
And ultimately, he acted measured and reasonable. So what's the problem?
Firing Mueller was an idea for people who wanted an excuse to hinder the investigation without it looking like Nixon all over again. After about 2 milliseconds, when they figured out that wasn't possible because of optics alone (all except the very stable genius), the idea went out the window. The fact that the very stable genius was even considering it after those 2 milliseconds expired is either another example of 3D chess or another example of him being an idiot, depending on how you see things.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You're using the word "fact" to describe anonymous third-hand accounts of closed-door meetings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
First you said him considering firing Mueller would be fine. Now you're saying he never considered firing Mueller. Which is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
That's not what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Even considering firing Mueller reflects a lack of judgment. Never mind opinions to the contrary you may have heard on Fox News; it's a dumb move for a president to fire a guy who's investigating him because it suggests a guilty conscience (iow, he'd be 'doing a Nixon').Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So, if CNN can believe their source, Trump was doing this, and (from what I heard) even tried to get Mueller's boss to fire Mueller (since Trump doesn't have the authority to fire Mueller himself). Trump only backed down after Mueller's boss threatened to resign rather than fire Mueller, and others intervened and finally managed to convince Trump he was being an idiot.
The only thing to give Trump credit for here is eventually letting common sense prevail.
This isn't an insult, this is an astute observation.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Expecting basic reading comprehension might be unrealistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The only thing that's actually "known", is that Trump thoroughly evaluated all options and chose the best option after considering all available information and advice. End of story.
You really have ZERO credible information as to why Trump explored that option, what his actual intentions were, or whether or not his mind actually had to be "changed". For all we know, he's just super-thorough, and wanted to look at every possible angle. Maybe he's not a leader who accepts scoffs as answers. Maybe he just likes to challenge advice that gets blurted out within 2 milliseconds. Maybe he had no intention of firing Meuller, he just wanted to challenge his advisers to justify the decision with facts and logic rather than "optics", especially when he knows that those optics are dictated by a media who hates him. Those all sounds like habits of someone who has enjoyed monumental business success.
You can infer a lack of judgement, or a Nixonian retaliation if you like, but there is nothing supporting that except third hand accounts filtered through the NY Times.
I'm not playing this game with you Poop where everything Fox Reports is bullshit, but everything the NY Times says is gospel. If that's how your brain works, there's really no point in debating you because you're incapable of independent thought.
People are all biased. As such all news is biased.
Asserting that any single news source is relaying unbiased information is fully 'tarded.
I use my cheat codes to evaluate this. From the original story:
This tells us that the "story" is more likely false than not.Quote:
President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter
Trump is such a role model. Just get people to think you're retarded (while gaining influence) and then they will adopt any ol' retarded position they can to go against you. It's amazing.
And yet that's the very game you try to play, only in reverse.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
And if you are retarded, you've already won half the battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
And yet if the same argument is made the other way, it's "zomgbias".Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
MMM got it right, none of us know what's really going on; we all filter it through our own prior beliefs.
Filtering it through prediction accuracy is good too.
Incorrect. If you recall, my original post on this topic was critical of a Fox News piece.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You're the only one who has made any assertions about "what's really going on"Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
All I've stated is that the known facts are limited to A) Trump explored the option of firing Meuller and B) Decided not to. I've challenged the relevance, necessity, and implications of the story since it mostly contains conjecture and third-hand accounts from anonymous sources.
Somehow that makes me a delusional Trump apologist. I need that explained to me
So a retarded person obliterated the competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
There was competition? I thought he ran against the other least most popular candidate ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
And by 'obliterated', do you mean 'won by a modest margin'?