President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
1. oh, bawdy. lol. now there's a word no one ever uses, and almost impossible to pronounce differently from body. really gotta drag that dub out. man the english language is ****ing dumb / was a mistake...
Meanwhile paramount continues their tribute to the king by cancelling the late show on top of their lawsuit settlement
on top of neutering 60 minutes by replacing the goof running the show with some maga stooge. i mean it already sucked (like colbert), but even the most tepid, conservative shitlibbery is too much for these sacks of **** i guess. pretty funny that no one else from the show quit in protest or anything.
oh you want us to do maga propaganda now? sure, no problem
cooper already doing that stuff over on cnn, so not really a stretch for any of these guys
what are they even replacing colbert with? heard they're straight up just ending the show ..... so just king of queens reruns at 1130 then? lol
rip cbs
oh and i guess pbs got killed last night too, it's all happening
is anyone gonna do anything about any of this? nah (enjoy arbys)
Good. Maybe you should have been clear about that from the get-go instead of calling folks "******ed."
I think its blatantly obvious there is a strong link between advanced education and advanced critical thinking
When people with advanced degrees overwhelmingly can sus out that the Republicans have largely been spewing endless nonsense for the last 10 years it basically becomes indesputable.
I'm sure this will offend your sensibilities and your reaction will be to reject the notion but its incredibly evident that Republican voters can't parse together large amounts of data to form cohesive views and thats why they lean on ridiculous conspiracy instead of historical fact
And at that level whats the distinction between IQ and critical thinking?
Actually, smart folks are almost always more susceptible to at least creating conspiracy theories because they typically see patterns in the ordinary that other folks don't see.
Which somewhat undermines (though doesn't negate) your point.
Meanwhile paramount continues their tribute to the king by cancelling the late show on top of their lawsuit settlement
It is suspicious, but would they wait until next May to cancel?
Good. Maybe you should have been clear about that from the get-go instead of calling folks "******ed."
Actually, smart folks are almost always more susceptible to at least creating conspiracy theories because they typically see patterns in the ordinary that other folks don't see.
Which somewhat undermines (though doesn't negate) your point.
I don't think it's true that smart people see more patterns. Humans evolved to see patterns because it increased their survival rates, but that resulted in seeing patterns even in places where they don't exist. Most more educated people learn to disregard the spurious patterns.
The best poker players aren't generally the ones who think particular cards are running hot, rush to take the lucky seat when a player leaves after a big win, or sit out because they think certain dealers are bad luck for them.
I don't think it's true that smart people see more patterns. Humans evolved to see patterns because it increased their survival rates, but that resulted in seeing patterns even in places where they don't exist. Most more educated people learn to disregard the spurious patterns.
Smart people for sure see more patterns. Virtually (if not literally) all Grandmaster chess players have a genuis IQ. Chess is primarily calculation and pattern-recognition.
The best poker players aren't generally the ones who think particular cards are running hot, rush to take the lucky seat when a player leaves after a big win, or sit out because they think certain dealers are bad luck for them.
I agree. But dealing cards is a transparently random distribution unless it is rigged.
That said, it is really smart people who typically develop Craps and Roulette systems that are based on observation of prior events.
9/11 and Moon Landing conspiracy theories are much more complex than a simple rolling of dice or dealing cards. Smart people try to connect dots that average folks don't even recognize as being dots.
I thought it was obvious that I wasn't asking for the general definition of a confidence interval.
usually a poll about approval only requires a fairly small sample to be of good quality, because that's how it works for a yes or nor question.
but then if you slice it up further by education or whatever, you are going to encounter sample problems fairly quickly, which is why it ande sense to include CI sizes there, so I don't understand your objection
I honestly don't know how this argument is working in your head. Is the next step in your order of proof an assertion that we know Trump views women as equals of men because he had sex with Stormy Daniels.
no my step there would be that we know for a fact he isn't particularly misogynist otherwise he wouldn't have picked a woman for SCOTUS nor a woman to head one of the most important ministries that defines Trump strategy.
I know you guys want to insist Trump is evil incarnate and the worst human being to ever have lived and so on, but he simply is dramatically less racist and less misogynist than the median american adult was 100 years ago.
And again *even if that isn't enough* because reasons, it is still objectively true
Good old Luciom straw-manning again. I said the core of HIS voting base, not "the republican voting base." The core meaning the key component. I fully stand by low IQ voters being the core of his voters. Dunno if its sub 70, but it's LOW. This is proven amply to me every single day.
he is the republican party today.
and people who didn't complete highschool disapprove of trump more than those who had some college as per the economist data.
and you know why, because the people at the very bottom of IQ and education in the USA are overwhelmingly non white in a disproportionate way compared to ethnic proportions in the population.
no my step there would be that we know for a fact he isn't particularly misogynist otherwise he wouldn't have picked a woman for SCOTUS nor a woman to head one of the most important ministries that defines Trump strategy.
Keep using the same logic and repeat the same argument ad nauseam does't make it sound.
I know you guys want to insist Trump is evil incarnate and the worst human being to ever have lived and so on, but he simply is dramatically less racist and less misogynist than the median american adult was 100 years ago.
How is this relevant to anything?
Shouldn't you compare him to present time population?
You really are drifting, AI's not working today?
Keep using the same logic and repeat the same argument ad nauseam does't make it sound.
How is this relevant to anything
Shouldn't you compare him to present time population
You really are drifting, AI's not working today
If your claim is that the core voters are racist for Trump and you use that claim with a uniqueness bent, while instead every other republican candidate in the past (even the recent past) got voted more by more racist people, what are you exactly claiming?
given how the parties divide, every election basically all actual racists will always vote republican if they vote , correct? and the population is less racist over time so every election cycle, republicans are voted by racists less than the previous one.
Same for mysogynists. So even if the totality of racist voters voted for Trump that doesn't mean Trump run on racism, not more than every single republican candidate before him.
Lev Parnas said he has a credible source for Dan Bongino as the leaker. I've heard before that Bongino hasn't shown up at the FBI for like a week.
IIRC someone here said Lev has had some quality info lately?
If your claim is that the core voters are racist for Trump and you use that claim with a uniqueness bent, while instead every other republican candidate in the past (even the recent past) got voted more by more racist people, what are you exactly claiming?given how the parties divide, every election basically all actual racists will always vote republican if they vote , correct
Don't think I didn't notice you running away from my question on the British politics thread.
Don't think I didn't notice you running away from my question on the British politics thread.
In theory yes the police can arrest you for just expressing sympathy for terrorists. In practice it's rare and selective when they choose to do so, that's very typical in italy, we have an insane amount of laws that are only applied when they care about it (some of which we "discovered" existed only during covid for example).
Here it's a case of an algerian person arrested n 2024, who then lost his refugee status and got detained for deportation, because he simply expressed pro Hamas sympathies
They searched his apartment for "guns and explosives" (using an anti-terrorism law that doesn't require a warrant for that) , found nothing, and then got prosecuted for "instigation to commit crimes" (the 604 i mentioned before) because he had talked (*in a private chat*) positively about Hamas.
So yes in theory they could do the same to everyone in italy who writes positively about any terror group.
It's also a crime to insult our president of the republic (an old remnant of a quasi-lese majeste law) but they don't prosecute or arrest almost ever for that, except when they decide to remind people it's an actual law that actually exists and they ruin the lives of a few guys who posted insults to the president on social media, have major newspapers report on it, then stop prosecuting that for a few years.
no my step there would be that we know for a fact he isn't particularly misogynist otherwise he wouldn't have picked a woman for SCOTUS nor a woman to head one of the most important ministries that defines Trump strategy.
This makes no sense.
It definitely doesn't. Trump appointing someone he can control is the reason for those picks. It definitely doesn't preclude misogyny. And there is plenty of other evidence of his misogyny that you'd have to ignore to take that view.
So of course, Luciom does.
In theory yes the police can arrest you for just expressing sympathy for terrorists. In practice it's rare and selective when they choose to do so, that's very typical in italy, we have an insane amount of laws that are only applied when they care about it (some of which we "discovered" existed only during covid for example).Edit: Ok did some digging and merely expressing sympa
According to that link he was investigated for "propaganda", which I'd have no issue with but also incitement which is different than expressing mere sympathy. Apparently one of the things he said was God's revenge will come " which is open to interpretation I suppose. I'll do some digging later.
According to that link he was investigated for "propaganda", which I'd have no issue with but also incitement which is different than expressing mere sympathy. Apparently one of the things he said was God's revenge will come " which is open to interpretation I suppose. I'll do some digging later.
The idea is that expressing sympathy for people who commit heinous crime is inherently incitement in the italian legal system. It's not like in the USA where it is a much stricter definition (and maybe in general in the anglo world?)
The idea is that expressing sympathy for people who commit heinous crime is inherently incitement in the italian legal system. It's not like in the USA where it is a much stricter definition (and maybe in general in the anglo world?)
Sorry I edited wrong in my last post but after looking into it, it's not a criminal offence in Italy just to merely express sympathy for a cause or group. It needs to be connected to a concrete crime or else fall under incitement. So you can express mere sympathy with any proscribed group long as you don't follow through with something that can be seen as criminal.
Prob a contract thing. Bet they lose way more in overall salary/ad commits than the 16M they paid Trump if they just cancel it without proper notice.
Non-zero chance it gets pulled sooner if Colbert really goes off the rails. Similar thing happened with Conan and the Tonight Show.
Smart people for sure see more patterns. Virtually (if not literally) all Grandmaster chess players have a genuis IQ. Chess is primarily calculation and pattern-recognition.I agree. But dealing cards is a transparently random distribution unless it is rigged. That said, it is really smart people who typically develop Craps and Roulette systems that are based on observation o
I'm not a chess expert, but I don't see what a perfect information strategy game has to do with seeing patterns.
Anyone very intelligent wouldn't even bother trying to figure out a system for craps or roulette.
I live in Italy, there aren't a lot of black people here, and those who are here are recent arrivals.
I think it was less than 0.1% black when I was in school for example. It was 2% total foreign born when I was in high school, most of them from the Balkans and north Africa (berbers, not black).
I have eastern European friends but only because several friends of mine have eastern European gf/wives.
Now it might be 2% black at most, probably less, many of which illegals.
It's basically very rare to have any non italian friend if you are over30 and don't work menial jobs, as you won't have any immigrant colleague either (immigration here is all low skilled).
You might have some immigrant acquaintances like parents of children that go to school with your children but it's not very common to become friends with those in general (Italian or not).
I don't have Muslim friends either btw (perhaps 3% of the population, against mostly arrived in the last 20-25 years).
Don't think I didn't notice you running away from my question on the British politics thread.
In theory yes the police can arrest you for just expressing sympathy for terrorists. In practice it's rare and selective when they choose to do so, that's very typical in italy, we have an insane amount of laws that are only applied when they care about it (some of which we "discovered"
The vibe of your answer is definitely not in line with how you expressed it in your original sentence.
Bad faith much?
In theory... is not the same as you made it sound earlier.
