Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

robindch

FA Hayek wrote: »

If your views are confusing, then perhaps stop talking in subtle riddles [...]

I'm sorry to hear that you find my posts confusing.

Have you tried reading them more slowly?

FA Hayek

robindch wrote: »

I am not "basically saying" anything since you'll have noticed, I hope the word "similarity" above

I am suggesting that protestors who play into the entirely predictable "shock" which Yiannopoulos affects each time that riots break out when he's around - well, such protestors really seem quite stupid - leading me to suspect that they may not be exactly who they pretend to be. An uncontroversial-enough opinion in a world, I'd have thought, in a world now anesthetized to "alternative facts".

So, your not saying but you really are suggesting. Remember when I said you should stop talking in riddles?

I think you are losing it a little to be honest. I thought this forum was better then this, but it seems people are now freely entertaining conspiracy theories, instead of actually looking at it, like occam's razor, that the people who smashed up private property and assaulted people are indeed anarchists and anti-fa left wingers.

Frankly unless you can find actual hard empirical evidence and not mere theories of the fleeting imagination then I will call out your assertion as flat earth creationist bull****.

robindch

FA Hayek wrote: »

I thought this forum was better then this

Well, why bother post here if you don't like it?

Mark Hamill

orubiru wrote: »

With Trump specifically I think people could have been smarter

Smarter how? Many of his opposition were terrible, sure. But not all of them were (a few on both sides were, at least nowhere near as bad as what has gotten into power before).

orubiru wrote: »

Lying about them? That's a good way to lose.

Labeling people indiscriminately with buzzwords "racist", "sexist" etc? That's another good way to lose.

Is there actually much of this at all coming on from the anti-Trump side? Because, IMO, almost all of it comes from the Trump side.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Can you clarify what you mean, in practice, by the term as it might apply to DJT?

I think silverharp has already said what he means; Trump is "a patriot who wants the best for the US".

I myself doubt that Trump is actually motivated by considerations of the good of his country, but maybe that's just my cynicism. Assume for the moment that I'm wrong and silverharp is right, the question still arises: exactly what is "the best for the US"?

What Trump thinks is good for the US is not necessarily good for the US. Trump's grasp of reality, and that of his administration as a whole, is definitely hazy, and the faith that he places in bullying and bombast as effective tools is certainly misplaced. Even if Trump genuinely wants what's good for America, he seems very unlikely to deliver it. We're only a couple of weeks in, and it's early days yet, but his adminstration so far has been a parade of follies, disasters and embarrassments. He's been far more inept that even his enemies said he would be. His problems all seem to me to stem from his own character weaknesses and personality deficits, and so seem unlikely to be easily corrected. I doubt that Trump can reliably discern what is good for his country and, even if he can, I doubt he has the ability to to achieve it.

In short, a President needs more than patriotism.

pH

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is there actually much of this at all coming on from the anti-Trump side? Because, IMO, almost all of it comes from the Trump side.

You're joking right?
right?

Qs

He's not even a very good patriot. Yesterday he criticised the US to defend Russia.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think silverharp has already said what he means; Trump is "a patriot who wants the best for the US".

Well, being a little bit pedantic here - the phrase "a patriot who wants the best for the US" suggests that silverharp believes that the primary meaning of patriot would not include somebody who wants the best for their country. BTW, I believe that silverharp is a she, not a he

But as above, and more seriously and with the exception of the two minor EO's which I highlighted (and praised) somewhere a few days back here, I genuinely can't connect any of the actions to date of the DJT/GOP power bloc with anything which is going to produce a positive result at any time, and much which is going to degrade the nature of US democracy, or cause permanent trouble or take significant effort to undo if the shambles continues for much longer.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In short, a President needs more than patriotism.

Can't disagree with that.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

But as above, and more seriously and with the exception of the two minor EO's which I highlighted (and praised) somewhere a few days back here, I genuinely can't connect any of the actions to date of the DJT/GOP power bloc with anything which is going to produce a positive result at any time, and much which is going to degrade the nature of US democracy, or cause permanent trouble or take significant effort to undo if the shambles continues for much longer.

You'll get no argument from me on that!

FA Hayek

pH wrote: »

You're joking right?
right?

A head scratcher alright, Mark seems to have gone to sleep in 2008 and woken up last month.

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

My understanding of the word "patriot" seems to be similar - somebody who works for the greater good of his country and all its citizens.

However, I'm having a little trouble connecting that understanding with DJT, an unstable, narcissistic, petulant tax-avoiding fraudster who has boasted about sexual assault, brazenly lies, is dangerously uninformed about nukes and who actively undermines the judicary.

Can you clarify what you mean, in practice, by the term as it might apply to DJT?

Well, being a little bit pedantic here - the phrase "a patriot who wants the best for the US" suggests that silverharp believes that the primary meaning of patriot would not include somebody who wants the best for their country. BTW, I believe that silverharp is a she, not a he

But as above, and more seriously and with the exception of the two minor EO's which I highlighted (and praised) somewhere a few days back here, I genuinely can't connect any of the actions to date of the DJT/GOP power bloc with anything which is going to produce a positive result at any time, and much which is going to degrade the nature of US democracy, or cause permanent trouble or take significant effort to undo if the shambles continues for much longer.

No I am a he, I wont ask but I thought my constant poking fun of feminists and sjw's and vegan cookies would be more a male pastime? :pac:

but yeah have the best interests of his country at heart which would be more adverse to expending resources abroad and instead focus on domestic policies. In the first year I'd expect the administration make it easier to do business in the US and begin to see a reversal of outsourcing. Maybe see lowering of business taxes so that US companies don't have to headquarter themselves outside the US for example.
Personally I'd be sceptical if "he" can reboot their inner cities and tackle drug crime but interesting to see what they do. Otherwise I believe it would be in the US interests to not view Russia in cold war terms so any progress there would be great.

Mark Hamill

pH wrote: »

You're joking right?
right?

Maybe "almost all" is a bit strong (every side has liars and name callers), but the clear majority of lying and name calling, not to mention the most egregious, comes from the right.
Look at the massive difference in the accuracy between Trump's and Clinton's statements on politifact.com.
Look at Facebook being unwilling to censor false news because of how that would overwhelmingly effect right wing sources.
Sure Clinton called Trump supporters basket of deplorables. Is that really worse than when Trump called Mexican immigrants rapists?

pH

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Look at the massive difference in the accuracy between Trump's and Clinton's statements on politifact.com.

Sorry but how can you or anyone take that seriously? It's obvious that depending on what statements you choose you can skew the facts any way you want, and unless the site can show they have an objective criteria on how to pick a statement then attributing anything to the totals is meaningless.

Are you really saying that you know for a 100% fact that that website hasn't left out even one 'true' Trump statement? If not then honestly, you should know better.

Peregrinus

pH wrote: »

Sorry but how can you or anyone take that seriously? It's obvious that depending on what statements you choose you can skew the facts any way you want, and unless the site can show they have an objective criteria on how to pick a statement then attributing anything to the totals is meaningless.

Are you really saying that you know for a 100% fact that that website hasn't left out even one 'true' Trump statement? If not then honestly, you should know better.

Politifact has been around since long before Trump has been on the scene. They explain their process here. With respect to how the choose which statements to examine, they say:

"Every day, PolitiFact and PunditFact staffers look for statements that can be checked. We comb through speeches, news stories, press releases, campaign brochures, TV ads, Facebook postings and transcripts of TV and radio interviews. Because we can't possibly check all claims, we select the most newsworthy and significant ones.

In deciding which statements to check, we ask ourselves these questions:

Is the statement rooted in a fact that is verifiable? We don’t check opinions, and we recognize that in the world of speechmaking and political rhetoric, there is license for hyperbole.

Is the statement leaving a particular impression that may be misleading?

Is the statement significant? We avoid minor "gotchas" on claims that obviously represent a slip of the tongue.

Is the statement likely to be passed on and repeated by others?

Would a typical person hear or read the statement and wonder: Is that true?"

Mark Hamill

pH wrote: »

Sorry but how can you or anyone take that seriously? It's obvious that depending on what statements you choose you can skew the facts any way you want, and unless the site can show they have an objective criteria on how to pick a statement then attributing anything to the totals is meaningless.

Are you really saying that you know for a 100% fact that that website hasn't left out even one 'true' Trump statement? If not then honestly, you should know better.

You are using the "you can't know for a 100% fact" fallacy on this forum? Really?

If you have some evidence that Trump is actually more accurate in his statements than his opponents were, and that he didn't resort to the most crass name calling (convenient you ignored that part), then please present. As Peregrinus pointed out, Politifact has been around for a long time and their methods are pretty clear.
What about the article about Facebook being previously unwilling to implement changes in the news feed to fight against false news because of how it would have overwhelmingly effected right wing sources?

robindch

pH wrote: »

Sorry but how can you or anyone take that seriously?

It can be taken seriously because it each article includes primary source reference material so that people can trace the basic information, plus the chain of logic, which leads to the final judgement. FWIW, as Peregrinus points out, the site also publishes its basic methodology so people can understand that.

If people get upset that DJT and the GOP are being called liars so often, well, perhaps they shouldn't lie so much.

pH

robindch wrote: »

It can be taken seriously because it each article includes primary source reference material so that people can trace the basic information, plus the chain of logic, which leads to the final judgement. FWIW, as Peregrinus points out, the site also publishes its basic methodology so people can understand that.

If people get upset that DJT and the GOP are being called liars so often, well, perhaps they shouldn't lie so much.

And every time you do that (trace the article) you find the site bending over backwards to find fault in things they view as politically incorrect, and justifying things said by people they approve of. Add to that their ability to cherry pick the statements being analysed, means that this and other 'fact checkers' are a quite sinister attempt to push a political agenda, while pretending to be impartial.

It's obvious, in terms of say Brexit and Trump, the vast majority of mainstream media has given up on trying to report news, and instead is focusing, on narrative, and attempts to push what it thinks is the correct political agenda. I stopped reading the Guardian, I would say 2 years ago, and now to me the BBC seems more corrupt than Breitbart (who at least have the honesty to openly admit what they do).

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Trump's morals and lies are much different from any mainstream politician, and certainly not from Clinton, who I would certainly rank as more dishonest and corrupt than Trump any day of the week.

So here we are, "mainstream media", disappointed and shocked that its audience is leaving them in droves because of its underhanded political bias, is now going to 'fact-check' its audience back into line.

And the complete and mindbogglingly crazy thing about this is we have Trump in power in America, and far right or right leaning parties on the ascendancy in Europe, and we're screaming for our news sources to be controlled and verified?

Can no one see where this is going? We should be screaming for diverse points of view in the news, by all means point out politicians lies or even criticise them from your political perspective, but pretending that this is somehow impartial is just handing control of news to those in power or likely to be in power in the near future.

Mark Hamill

pH wrote: »

And every time you do that (trace the article) you find the site bending over backwards to find fault in things they view as politically incorrect, and justifying things said by people they approve of. Add to that their ability to cherry pick the statements being analysed, means that this and other 'fact checkers' are a quite sinister attempt to push a political agenda, while pretending to be impartial.

Firstly, it's not checking if statements are politically correct, it checking if they are factually correct.
Secondly, do you have any actual examples of what you claim here? That they mislabel something as false for Trump and they ignored false statements made by Clinton.

robindch

pH wrote: »

[...] now to me the BBC seems more corrupt than Breitbart (who at least have the honesty to openly admit what they do).

I'm fascinated that you use the term "corrupt" instead of something more appropriate to the notion of reporting reality like "inaccurate".

Can you expand on what exactly you mean by "corrupt"? What sense? Against whom and to benefit whom? And what has lead you to conclude that the BBC is more "corrupt" than Breitbart?

pH

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Firstly, it's not checking if statements are politically correct, it checking if they are factually correct.
Secondly, do you have any actual examples of what you claim here? That they mislabel something as false for Trump and they ignored false statements made by Clinton.

Literally every one of them, for example:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/02/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-donald-trump-doesnt-believe-e/

In summary
- If something is not on your website, you don't believe in it.
- If you have make any kind of nuanced statement then it can be twisted.

This is the intellectual 'honesty' of these fact checkers.

As we all know equal pay for equal work is what pay equality is all about. Regardless of race, gender etc companies here and in the US cannot pay women a different rate, nor can they advertise "women need not apply"

There is another 'battle', that above and beyond the pay equality laws, governments should be socially engineering society to force pay equality outcome statistically across the board, and I accept that there are many of the left advocating this. But again conflating these two issues is intellectually dishonest, exactly the game politicians play.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Trump is anti the basic idea that we should have equal pay legislation. Is Trump in favour of a government attempting to engineer the people that elected it so statistically men and women would have the same pay? Probably not.

Clinton's statement: Donald Trump “doesn't believe in equal pay.” - Absolutely a lie, Politifact rating: half true!

recedite

pH wrote: »

Clinton's statement: Donald Trump “doesn't believe in equal pay.” - Absolutely a lie, Politifact rating: half true!

Absolutely agreed!

silverharp

pH wrote: »

There is no evidence whatsoever that Trump is anti the basic idea that we should have equal pay legislation. Is Trump in favour of a government attempting to engineer the people that elected it so statistically men and women would have the same pay? Probably not.

Clinton's statement: Donald Trump “doesn't believe in equal pay.” - Absolutely a lie, Politifact rating: half true!

how do they class every time Obama or Clinton mentioned the mythical "wage gap"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsavwpCYh4k

Mark Hamill

pH wrote: »

Clinton's statement: Donald Trump “doesn't believe in equal pay.” - Absolutely a lie, Politifact rating: half true!

Eh, did you bother to read past the very start of the page? Where it explains why it is half true?:

Clinton said Trump "doesn't believe in equal pay."

Trump’s campaign website does not have a stipulated stance on equal pay for men and women, but his campaign says he supports "equal pay for equal work." Trump has said men and women doing the same job should get the same pay, but it’s hard to determine what’s "the same job," and that if everybody gets equal pay, "you get away from capitalism in a sense."

Trump has also said pay should be based on performance, not gender -- so he does appear to favor uniform payment if performance is alike.

Clinton’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. We rate it Half True.

You are not doing very much for your argument about the right being more honest than the left.

FA Hayek

Ah, the wage gap. The most dishonest myth of them all.

People don't trust the MSM anymore because they create a narrative and then find 'facts' to support their case, while ignoring facts that dismember it, then present it as news or as 'THE TRUTH!'

The way the MSM lies is more nuanced and subtle then saying something as a bold faced a lie, but its still lies and fake news, only its dressed up as 'journalism'.

The MSM should also be the checking power, but as we all saw they are in the tank for certain politician and parties with whom they agree with. E.g. CNN is out foxing Foxiness with their lies and dishonest coverage of events these past few months, yet all the same analysts and journalists still have a job when everything they have predicated have gone the other way.

David Davies took a lot of heat when he said, the people are sick of experts, yet he is right, because mostly behind their bold predictions which they normally always get wrong, they are full of ****, dishonest and are peddling an idealogical line.

silverharp

Interesting video not on politicians but how CNN and the lads misrepresent the news by the Youtuber Sargon who by the way isn't a Trump fan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjFmOKqyWpE

recedite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Eh, did you bother to read past the very start of the page? Where it explains why it is half true?:
You are not doing very much for your argument about the right being more honest than the left.

I'll just highlight the relevant parts from your own quote....

Trump has said men and women doing the same job should get the same pay

Trump has also said pay should be based on performance, not gender -- so he does appear to favor uniform payment if performance is alike

pH

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Eh, did you bother to read past the very start of the page? Where it explains why it is half true?:


You are not doing very much for your argument about the right being more honest than the left.

I did read it, the main (only?) argument i could see was that Trump didn't have something on his website about it. Every other argument stated in that summary showed that in terms of pay equality and the legislation protecting it, Trump is in favour of it. Clinton gets half true on the basis of something not found on Trump's website!

It's bending over backwards to find any evidence (or indeed lack of!) for 'their' side.

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

I'll just highlight the relevant parts from your own quote....

I think what you meant to say is that you'll just ignore everything inconvenient to you argument, such as:

Trump has said men and women doing the same job should get the same pay, but it’s hard to determine what’s "the same job," and that if everybody gets equal pay, "you get away from capitalism in a sense."

FA Hayek

These fact check websites are can just in peddling falsehoods.
The journal.ie have some of these too and some of their conclusions are head scratching to say the least.

Pherekydes

FA Hayek wrote: »

These fact check websites are can just in peddling falsehoods.
The journal.ie have some of these too and some of their conclusions are head scratching to say the least.

I suppose you get your facts straight from Sean Spicer.