In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
"A case study analysis of the practice of science as a human activity. The theories linking the emergence of modern science to western culture are considered. An analysis of ideas of the social structure of scientific activity including: the role of examples in forming scientific theories, the value system of scientists in both basic research and applied research environments, "individual genius" vs multiple discovery, and the influence of "leading" figures. The linkages of scientific activity with other cultural dimensions are explored and the bases for formulation of "science policy" are considered."
I wasn't captivated enough in the topics, we discussed the four popular ethical systems...
I was the say it was the virtue ethics (Plato or Aristotle?), locke's rights ethics, Kant ethics, and Mill's Utilitarianism.
In my eyes they are use different assumptions that have no merit in absolute terms... And even when we discussed professional ethics, it's like oh, consider this ethic, oh this doesn't look socially acceptable, so use a different ethos instead.
They weren't philosophy courses, but man, the way they taught it, and the people around me, bleh.... Not a fan. You get a different answer depending on depth your argument gets to, and you can go to an infinite depth or until you reach the conclusion that nothing has any meaning, and you say fuck it. I spent quite some time and discussions on this, and it didn't lead to anything.
If someone like me can't reach a result with significant time investment and genuine interest, I definitely don't think the majority of the public will either. And blindly following an ethos to me is like blindly following a religion... It's meaningless if you don't justify it to yourself, which makes it even more screwed up, because then it makes no sense to pursue the interests of your philosophy for anything else but your self interest.
that's a decent coverage then; but it doesn't change that science, evidence, and reason can be useful tools for exploring those issues. and that most people of the public will get far has NO bearing on whether they're useful tools. and the point is to not blindly follow; that goes against the ENTIRE point of science. The point is that everything is backed up by piles of evidence and support. so again that point has no bearing.
i.e. you said a bunch of reasonable things; they just don't support your initial premise, which was the topic of the dispute.
Just needs that wonderful circus music you have going on in the background
The question I have is how are they so good at it? do they actually believe their own bullshit or are they just so sociopathic they can say anything without remorse?
Clinton doesn't even flinch when lying, it's amazing.
Just needs that wonderful circus music you have going on in the background
The question I have is how are the so good at it? do they actually believe their own bullshit or are they just so sociopathic they can say anything without remorse?
Clinton doesn't even flinch when lying, it's amazing.
well, they'd probably dispute whether they're lying; but I didn't watch the videos. politicians and high level executives tend to score high on sociopathy scales.
if you want to specify one I could address it in greater depth.
Just noticed something. Might as well write it here.
Trump (or an organization supporting his campaign) appears to be manipulating youtube hits in his favor. Just search "Donald Trump" vs. "Hillary Clinton." A lot of front page hits for Clinton for negative stuff. Not so much for Trump despite being the more contentious candidate. Smart to manipulate the view count to pull things to the front page to change the perception of the candidate.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said Sunday that GOP candidates who ran against Donald Trump and lost may face penalties if they don’t endorse Trump but try to take another shot at the presidency later.
“Those people need to get on board,” Preibus said of Trump’s primary challengers.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz have yet to endorse Trump, despite the real estate mogul securing the nomination in July.
“If they’re thinking they’re going to run again some day, I think that we’re going to evaluate the process of the nomination process, and I don’t think it’s going to be that easy for them,” Priebus told CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
Priebus added that those candidates “gave [the RNC] their word” and used information provided by the party.
He said that the process requires candidates to endorse the nominee if they want to be on the ballot in certain states, which could complicate matters in 2020 or 2024.
“People in our party are talking about what we’re going to do about this,” Priebus said. “There is a ballot access issue in South Carolina. In order to be on the ballot in South Carolina, you actually have to pledge your support to the nominee, no matter who that person is. What’s the penalty for that? It’s not a threat. It’s just a question that we have a process in place.”
“And if a private entity puts forward a process and has agreement with the participants in that process,” he continued, “then those participants don’t follow through with the promises that they made in that process, what should a private party do about that if those same people come around in four or eight years?”
I am strongly of the opinion that Ted Cruz' speech at the RNC is going to be bad for his career. He's hoping to weather the Trump storm and go back to business as usual for next election cycle. But Trump didn't win for no reason, and the factors that made him popular will still exist next time around.
On September 19 2016 05:54 lvatural wrote: Just noticed something. Might as well write it here.
Trump (or an organization supporting his campaign) appears to be manipulating youtube hits in his favor. Just search "Donald Trump" vs. "Hillary Clinton." A lot of front page hits for Clinton for negative stuff. Not so much for Trump despite being the more contentious candidate. Smart to manipulate the view count to pull things to the front page to change the perception of the candidate.
Okay, continue on.
could be; or it could involve no manipulation and simply be an outcome of other normal processes.
On September 19 2016 06:05 LegalLord wrote: I am strongly of the opinion that Ted Cruz' speech at the RNC is going to be bad for his career. He's hoping to weather the Trump storm and go back to business as usual for next election cycle. But Trump didn't win for no reason, and the factors that made him popular will still exist next time around.
On the national stage, but Cruz could be a senator forever if he wants.
More than 200m gallons of contaminated wastewater from a fertilizer plant in central Florida leaked into one of the state’s main underground sources of drinking water after a huge sinkhole opened up beneath a storage pond, a phosphate company said on Friday.
Mosaic, the world’s largest supplier of phosphate, said the hole opened up beneath a pile of waste material called a “gypsum stack”. The 215m gallon storage pond sat atop the waste mineral pile. The company said the sinkhole was about 45ft in diameter.
Mosaic said it was monitoring groundwater and had found no offsite impacts.
“Groundwater moves very slowly,” said David Jellerson, Mosaic’s senior director for environmental and phosphate projects. “There’s absolutely nobody at risk.”
The water had been used to transport the gypsum, which is a byproduct of fertilizer production, the company said.
The sinkhole, discovered by a worker on 27 August, is believed to reach down to the Floridan aquifer, the company said in a news release. Aquifers are vast, underground systems of porous rocks that hold water and allow water to move through the holes within the rock.
The Floridan aquifer is a major source of drinking water in the state. One of the highest-producing aquifers in the world, it underlies all of Florida and extends into southern Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina.
According to the University of Florida, it’s the principal source of groundwater for much of the state, and the cities of Tallahassee, Jacksonville, Gainesville, Orlando, Daytona Beach, Tampa, and St Petersburg all rely on it. The aquifer also supplies water to thousands of domestic, industrial and irrigation wells throughout the state.
Mosaic began diverting the pond water into an alternative holding area to reduce the amount of drainage when the problem was first detected. The company said it had been “recovering the water by pumping through onsite production wells”.
“We have an extensive monitoring system,” Jellerson said. “It’s already indicating that it’s recovering the material, but it will take some time for that process to complete.”
Dee Ann Miller, spokeswoman for the state’s department of environmental protection, said the company is updating state and federal agencies on the situation.
On September 19 2016 04:22 FiWiFaKi wrote: I actually just went realclearpolitics, and went through all the polls in order from newest to oldest, until one sorted it by demographics, thanks for assuming though.
I'm not going to say much, as I feel your post is more an attack on me, for what I meant to be a rather more objective post (I even said this poll is a bit Trump favored for example).
A poll being Trump favored is not the issue at all, while the USC poll is a Trump outlier it does have a normal proportion beweeen demographic breakdowns and who is ahead and by how far, that's what I've tried to point out in the reply before the previous one. There is no way for Trump to be 20+ with the white vote and not be at least 4-5 points ahead of Clinton in the overall vote.
Excuse the tone, but setting out to prove that Trump can realistically win the white vote by 20 points and lose the election is a fool's errand when no poll with normal (or even Rep skewed, within common sense) sampling can show that, regardless of whether they give Trump or Clinton as the overall winner. Checked USC, Fox, Reuters, CBS, Quinnipac, all with race breakdown and with closer to reality sampling (regardless of bias), none show that. Let me put it this way, if CNN got the number of republicans/dems/independents in the population wrong by 20%, how can their breakdowns possibly be reliable?
Apologies if I was wrong and this was pure chance rather than cherry picking, but I hope you can see why that seemed by far the more likely scenario to me. In the first post supporting this theory you used race breakdown from USC and paired it with the general impression of who is ahead overall rather than also the USC data on who is ahead. In the 2nd one you did use both the race breakdown and overall voting intention from the same poll (CNN), but it was the one poll in existence that would support this conclusion, a poll with a huge glaring sampling fault, and also that there were several more recent polls with this kind of breakdown.
On September 19 2016 04:22 FiWiFaKi wrote: So the only thing I'll comment on is that there isn't a high enough percentage of rich people that isn't still middle class that it would skew those numbers significantly. To me it says working class Americans that work jobs paying 50% or more of minimum wage prefer Trump to Hillary.
Tried to find some data before taking this any further, but it seems very few polls have income breakdowns and even fewer have brackets that would be useful in this discussion
Clinton leads in each of the under-50k categories, and the two 75k-150k categories. Trump leads in the 50-75k category and the 150k+ category.
Clinton is surprisingly way ahead in the 100k-150k here (13%), in the 150k+ category Trump is ahead by 1%. Selecting all 3 of the 75k+ categories at the same time brings Clinton +10.
Clinton leads in the <35k category, Trump leads in the 35-75k category and the 75k+ category
Some important caveats here, the first two categories have been dominated by Clinton and Trump respectively from start to finish. While the 75k+ one has been constantly zig-zagging between them and to discuss your previous point I think it would have been much more useful if this one had higher categories like the Reuters one as well. Trump being at +8 in the 75k+ category is a huge contrast with the Reuters poll.
Hillary leads <30k and 50-75k. Trump leads 30-50k and 75k+. Again, no higher brackets and all but the 50-75k bracket are within the margin of error.
I could only find these 3 from September and they're pretty inconclusive. Before I thought you were talking about 150k+ bracket because that's the only poll I had looked at income breakdown before, but now I see you may have been talking about 75k+. The fact that there's so little data and even there both of these categories are either really close or going back-and-forth or contradictory with each other (like 75k+ Reuters and USC), means we'd probably be talking out of our assess if we read too much into it.
Yeah, a lot of polls don't do a good job splitting it by demographics as well as I'd like, I suppose that's natural, your margin of error will be huge when you only sample 1000 people, and you take a subgroup of 20-50 people from that. Also I dislike how the polls say our margin of error is x, and we're completely not basing that off of our methodology, but only number of people we sampled, makes it feel like these people took first year stats and that's it. That's another conversation though.
Second thing I wanted to point out is that looking at the raw number is a bit misleading right now in most polls, as until recently (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/#plus), most polls have had only 80% of people give an answer between Trump and Hillary, and I have no doubt that come election day that'll be 95%, so multiply any of those gaps almost 20%~ assuming that their demographics and national differential remain the same.
Feel free to link me a couple recent polls, that said, it's very unlikely you'll convince me otherwise with some indisputable evidence, as I've been looking at most polls methodologies as they've been coming out (I've been slacking a bit recently).
Mitt Romney won the white vote 59-39, and I fully expect Trump to be in the same ballpark, realistically even better relative to Clinton, like he will get 59, but the 3rd party candidates will take a few percent off of Hillary. And then he will do marginally better with Latinos and Asians, about the same with Blacks (or a couple percent lower)... And we will see if those differences are enough to make up those 4 points with Hillary's unpopularity.
On September 19 2016 06:05 LegalLord wrote: I am strongly of the opinion that Ted Cruz' speech at the RNC is going to be bad for his career. He's hoping to weather the Trump storm and go back to business as usual for next election cycle. But Trump didn't win for no reason, and the factors that made him popular will still exist next time around.
Well if the RNC and Priebus have anything to say about, then heresies against Trump will be punished. Let no man claim that Trump is not the Republican party. Priebus will bring the hammer down on any elected Republicans who fail to toe the line.
“People who agreed to support the nominee, that took part in our process, they used tools from the RNC. They agreed to support the nominee. They took part in our process. We’re a private party, we’re not a public entity. Those people need to get on board,” Mr. Priebus said. “And if they’re thinking they’re going to run again someday, I think we’re going to evaluate our process, the nomination process, and I don’t think it’s going to be that easy for them,” he said.
Donald Trump's running mate says it is "nonsense" to suggest that the Republican presidential nominee was encouraging violence against Hillary Clinton when he told a crowd in Miami Friday that "her bodyguards should drop all weapons" and "let's see what happens to her."
In an interview that aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week," host Martha Raddatz asked Indiana Gov. Mike Pence what Trump meant by a comment that the Clinton campaign quickly denounced as "out of bounds for a presidential candidate."
"Well I think, you know, Donald Trump believes in the safety and security of every American, and any suggestion otherwise regarding Secretary Clinton is just nonsense," Pence said. "I mean, the point that he was making is that Hillary Clinton has had private security now in her life for the last 30 years, but she would deny the right of law-abiding citizens to have a firearm in their home to protect their own families. I think what Donald Trump was saying is that if Hillary Clinton didn't have all that security, she'd probably be a whole lot more supportive of the Second Amendment."
Trump has made the point Pence described several times before, without causing an outcry. In an address to the National Rifle Association in May, for instance, the real estate mogul said "heartless hypocrites like the Clintons ... want to get rid of guns, and yet they have bodyguards that have guns."
"Let's see how they feel walking around without their guns and their bodyguards," Trump added in that speech.
His remarks on Friday were more ominous -- focused not on Clinton's supposed hypocrisy and how she would "feel" without armed guards but on what might "happen to her" if the Secret Service were to disarm. "It would be very dangerous," Trump said in Miami.
On ABC, Pence blamed the media for making a big deal out of nothing.
"It really is remarkable," he said. "You know, I just joined this campaign a couple months ago but, you know, to be honest with you, Martha -- I've got a lot of respect for you -- but a lot of people in the national media spend more time talking about what Donald Trump said in the last day than they do about what the Clintons have been up to for the last 30 years."
Its weird because people in his party are making the same comments about Trumps suggestions that Clinton be assassinated. Long time members saying it is not Presidential.
On September 19 2016 07:00 Plansix wrote: Its weird because people in his party are making the same comments about Trumps suggestions that Clinton be assassinated. Long time members saying it is not Presidential.
Pence is such a stuffed shirt.
Hmm, how did you interpret that in a way where he insinuates an assassination attempt?
I think my interpretation is very fair, and actually he's looking out for her, because he's saying it'd be very dangerous if she didn't have bodyguards, or bodyguards with guns, which is true, no? I mean Trump wears a bulletproof vest.
At best there is multiple interpretations to it, and yours is not right with any certainty. Of course they'd try to spin it into an invitation for assassination, since that's what people who don't like Trump do, but come on.
On September 19 2016 06:05 LegalLord wrote: I am strongly of the opinion that Ted Cruz' speech at the RNC is going to be bad for his career. He's hoping to weather the Trump storm and go back to business as usual for next election cycle. But Trump didn't win for no reason, and the factors that made him popular will still exist next time around.
Well if the RNC and Priebus have anything to say about, then heresies against Trump will be punished. Let no man claim that Trump is not the Republican party. Priebus will bring the hammer down on any elected Republicans who fail to toe the line.
“People who agreed to support the nominee, that took part in our process, they used tools from the RNC. They agreed to support the nominee. They took part in our process. We’re a private party, we’re not a public entity. Those people need to get on board,” Mr. Priebus said. “And if they’re thinking they’re going to run again someday, I think we’re going to evaluate our process, the nomination process, and I don’t think it’s going to be that easy for them,” he said.
For the RNC and Priebus, what matters isn't that people committed a heresy against Trump so much as people bucked the RNC. If Cruz somehow secured the nomination in 2020, the RNC would expect republicans to fall in line behind him.
LegalLord's point (and I agree with him) is that the Cruz has probably sacrificed his career with his principled stand against Trump, not because Cruz bucked the RNC, but because the Republican Party has ideologically passed Cruz by.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said Sunday that GOP candidates who ran against Donald Trump and lost may face penalties if they don’t endorse Trump but try to take another shot at the presidency later.
“Those people need to get on board,” Preibus said of Trump’s primary challengers.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz have yet to endorse Trump, despite the real estate mogul securing the nomination in July.
“If they’re thinking they’re going to run again some day, I think that we’re going to evaluate the process of the nomination process, and I don’t think it’s going to be that easy for them,” Priebus told CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
Priebus added that those candidates “gave [the RNC] their word” and used information provided by the party.
He said that the process requires candidates to endorse the nominee if they want to be on the ballot in certain states, which could complicate matters in 2020 or 2024.
“People in our party are talking about what we’re going to do about this,” Priebus said. “There is a ballot access issue in South Carolina. In order to be on the ballot in South Carolina, you actually have to pledge your support to the nominee, no matter who that person is. What’s the penalty for that? It’s not a threat. It’s just a question that we have a process in place.”
“And if a private entity puts forward a process and has agreement with the participants in that process,” he continued, “then those participants don’t follow through with the promises that they made in that process, what should a private party do about that if those same people come around in four or eight years?”
Priebus is mad that not everyone fell over so easily like he did. They were so scared of Trump they sat on their hands in the primary and now he's taking about a garbage pledge Trump himself nulified (and don't forget, the pledge was a protection against Trump, not for Trump) which he's going to try and punish others with. I'm not sure if I take him seriously though. On the one hand this would be the most GOP thing ever, but on the other Priebus is a spineless worm.
On September 19 2016 07:06 xDaunt wrote: LegalLord's point (and I agree with him) is that the Cruz has probably sacrificed his career with his principled stand against Trump, not because Cruz bucked the RNC, but because the Republican Party has ideologically passed Cruz by.
I would argue that would have happened whether or not Trump appeared when he did. Cruz's brand of uncompromising ultra-principled conservatism isn't something that actually appeals to most voters.
On September 19 2016 07:06 xDaunt wrote: LegalLord's point (and I agree with him) is that the Cruz has probably sacrificed his career with his principled stand against Trump, not because Cruz bucked the RNC, but because the Republican Party has ideologically passed Cruz by.
I would argue that would have happened whether or not Trump appeared when he did. Cruz's brand of uncompromising ultra-principled conservatism isn't something that actually appeals to most voters.
I thought it wouldn't have as well, but he did get a (imo) ridiculous large percentage of the Republican vote. Not sure how much of that was anti-Trump and how much was them liking him though.
EPT
