The Most Active Discussions Today
Anyone Believe This?
Pelosi says she does not hate Trump and does not hate anyone. Is there anyone who really believes this?
The Democrats Next Move
Yesterday was a loss for the Democrats and they proved nothing. They have failed on Quid Pro Quo so they have to go to a new game plan. That plan will be to go back to the Mueller report and start yelling obstruction of justice and also throwing in bribery. They know this is getting away from them so they have to move now. Being the cowards and unethical people they are they will vote on impeachment just before the Christmas break and then scurry away like the DemocRATS they are. They do all of this knowing there is no chance of conviction in the Senate. They just want it on Trump's record. All the while they will follow the Alinsky model and try and wrap their actions in high sounding hyperbole to try and legitimize what is nothing but hate for Trump that began the night he was elected. Their plan to impeach was hatched that same night.
Ho Ho Ho merry Xmas from the White House
Merry Christmas from Donald Trump your caring president will remove food stamps from 3.8 million SNAP recipients to help pay for his wealthy tax cuts got to take care of his family first. Maybe he should have waited until after Christmas.
The Selling Of Alternative Realities
By Lee McIntyre
While watching the House impeachment hearings, I realized my two decades of research into why people ignore, reject or deny science had a political parallel.
From anti-evolutionists to anti-vaccine advocates, known as “anti-vaxxers,” climate change deniers to Flat Earthers, science deniers all follow a common pattern of faulty reasoning that allows them to reject what they don’t want to believe – and accept what they favor – based on a misunderstanding of how science deals with evidence.
As I’ve been watching the hearings, I’ve noticed that a number of characteristics of this type of reasoning are now being embraced by President Donald Trump and his congressional supporters.
There are five common tactics used by science deniers. In 1998, brothers Mark and Chris Hoofnagle (a lawyer and a physiologist) wrote an early blog post about science denialism. That was followed by further work by econometrician Pascal Diethelm and public health scholar Martin McKee and cognitive scientists John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky. All identified the following factors as characteristic acts of science deniers:
Believing in conspiracy theories;
Relying on cherry-picked evidence;
Relying on fake experts (and dismissal of actual experts);
Committing logical errors;
Setting impossible standards for what science should be able to deliver.
These elements are present when those who deny the Earth is round or who believe vaccines cause autism insist that there is a governmental cover-up of the real evidence on their topics. They can be seen when Ted Cruz tries to discredit climate change with talk about the anomalous world weather pattern in 1998 due to El Niño. And they’re evident when intelligent design theorists complain that evolution by natural selection still has not been proven.
Trump and his defenders in Congress echo this pattern. Even though Trump has firsthand knowledge of some of the facts under dispute – whereas his supporters may not – all seem to have bought in fully to the idea that the actual political situation is not the one pictured in the mainstream consensus of facts and evidence, but instead is based on an alternative reality.
Here are the five ways Trump and his allies use the same strategies as science deniers:
Conspiracy theories: During his questioning of Ambassador Bill Taylor and other witnesses at the impeachment hearings, Republican counsel Steve Castor repeatedly pursued a debunked conspiracy theory involving an alleged plot in which the Ukrainian government – and not the Russians – interfered with the 2016 presidential election because they were out to get the president.
Cherry-picking: Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union, testified before the House Intelligence Committee that President Trump told him, “I want nothing from Ukraine. I want no quid pro quo.” Trump and his supporters focused on this statement as evidence of his innocence, despite the fact that in other testimony by Sondland that day, he said, “Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky…Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president.”
Discrediting experts: President Trump has repeatedly – and falsely – claimed that State Department and CIA employees such as Bill Taylor, George Kent, Fiona Hill, Alexander Vindman and others who have testified in the impeachment hearings are “Never Trumpers,” a term for Republicans who do not support Trump – and who therefore have no credibility. His supporters have latched onto this tactic. GOP Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said on Sept. 20, after the whistleblower complaint was made public: “It looks to me like another deep-state attack.”
Illogical reasoning: Trump supporters have claimed that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky never complained that he felt pressured by Trump to do the investigations into the Bidens that Trump sought. Trump himself has described the July 25 conversation he had with Zelensky in which he asked for the investigations as “perfect.” But news reports have shown that Zelensky did in fact feel pressured, and analysts have pointed out that Zelensky would risk losing crucial U.S. support were he to anger Trump by saying that he felt pressured.
Double standard for opponents: Trump claimed that written testimony from the whistleblower was unacceptable, despite the fact that he himself had only given written testimony in the Mueller investigation. Some of his supporters seem to agree and have tried to compel the whistleblower’s in-person testimony.
What might be behind the similarities between Trump defenders and science deniers? Perhaps, like science denial, all fact denial is basically the same. All ideology supports the reflex to believe what you want to believe. Scholars have studied the role of identity in shaping belief and concluded that sometimes even empirical beliefs can be tribal, reflecting what the other people on your team want you to believe. Adherence to a belief is not always based on evidence. The danger, of course, is that even as new facts come in, people won’t change their minds. This is the direct opposite of good empirical reasoning.
It is the hallmark of science that beliefs should be based on evidence, and that people should be willing to change their beliefs based on new evidence. This means that people should be able to specify in advance what evidence, if it existed, would be sufficient to get them to change their minds.
But are Trump and his congressional supporters doing that?
Like science deniers, no amount of evidence seems sufficient to change their partisan beliefs that the phone call with Zelensky was proper and that Trump “did nothing wrong.”
Even when the facts are overwhelming, congressional Republicans seem, like science deniers, willing to contort their beliefs and torture their logic, to stick to the party line because that is who they are.
As Senator Lindsey Graham recently put it, “I don’t care what anybody else says about the phone call … The phone call, I’ve made up my own mind, is fine.”
In science, such behavior means that one is eventually read out of the profession – you’re not fired, your tenure isn’t revoked, but you’re no longer taken seriously anymore.
In politics, it is not yet clear what the consequences might be.
San Diego State ‘Pronouns 101’ Event: Misgendering a Person Is Like “Stabbing” Them
San Diego State ‘Pronouns 101’ Event: Misgendering a Person Is Like “Stabbing” Them
Stabbing someone is assault — with potentially deadly consequences, but that does not stop the far left from equating this type of violence with using the wrong pronoun for someone, even if they have only recently made the switch to another gender or changed their preferences. One college wants us to be so sure about proper pronoun use that they are hosting an event to explain to the less woke among us that misgendering is as severe of a crime as actually stabbing someone with a knife.
San Diego State University is hosting an entire event designed to get students to adopt terms like “folks” instead of “guys” to make sure that no one feels mislabeled or that they are being addressed the wrong way. This latest initiative is part of an ongoing effort to remove gendered language of all types from the campus entirely. One speaker felt so attacked when the wrong pronoun was used that they likened this form of speech or address as on par with a physical attack. To them, being called by the wrong gender is “like being stabbed.”
The College Fix reports that the latest event designed to control speech at San Diego State University is focused on removing even broad forms of gendered speech – “ladies”, “gentlemen”, “you guys” and other casual terms should not be used. If these common terms do slip into your conversation, it is basically the same as attacking the person you are speaking to and violently stabbing them with a knife.
The latest event is focused on teaching the students how to properly use pronouns – and is called “Pronouns 101”. Speakers and representatives of the school’s government were on hand to ensure that the less woke attendees were properly instructed in pronoun use.
According to Mile Reyes, a school administrator:
“Some languages are more gender-neutral and are more able to incorporate gender-neutral pronouns in language, but when that’s not inherently in the system, we make it work…because [language] is meant to evolve,” Reyes explained
He went on to say that using the incorrect pronoun was disrespectful and gross:
“Referring to somebody with the wrong pronouns can make them feel just gross, it’s just disrespectful and it makes people feel invalid or invisible, and dismissed, alienated, dysphoric, and a bunch of unpleasant things,” Reyes continued.
The “Pronouns 101” event was part of a day-long series of workshops and classes at the school’s “Transgender Awareness Day.” One of the speakers explained that being misgendered was like being stabbed.
“I remember when I was first starting to transition and people would misgender me…It kind of felt like being stabbed, you know, but at the same time you’re being stabbed and you’re hurt, but you have to turn around and tell the person, ‘Oh actually don’t use this knife, I know you wanted to use a pom-pom to massage me or something instead of the knife that they went for.’” Palau said during the event, “It’s like having to do the labor of the emotional work while you’re kind of wounded yourself.”
This is not the first campus to begin to trod on free speech – in 2018, Hull University threatened students with lower grades if they used gendered language on English and writing assignments. This event is just a step closer to fewer rights at school and the type of hyperbole that continues to fuel censorship on and off college campuses.
A simple question for simple minded trump supporters
Since trump just sided with Hong Kong and pissed China off, the chance of a new trade deal may have just vanished like the truth when trump or his con supporters try to spin a lie.
That said, if trump is telling the truth that China's economy is much worse than the U.S economy, and that China is paying billions and billions and billions of dollars into the treasury, the question becomes why should trump ever end his tariffs on China, in fact why not increase both the rate of tariffs and expand the number of products affected by the trump tariffs.
In a few years or less, trump could bankrupt China, and lower taxes here even further. And pay down the ever increasing trump monthly deficit and ever increasing national debt.
Sounds like a plan that all trump cons should be able to support, so why won't trump do it?
Change In Constitution Regarding Impeachment?
It currently requires only a simple majority in the House for impeachment to take place. We are seeing how easy it is for the majority party to ram through an impeachment. It takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict and remove a President. This almost insures there has to be bi-partisan support. Should the Consitution be amended to require the same 2/3 in the House for impeachment thus requiring bi-partisan support?
Democrats are big liars!!
Iran demands cash from USA
dam Kredo - DECEMBER 3, 2019 2:55 PM
The Iranian government has ordered the United States to pay some $130 billion in reparations to citizens it says have been harmed by the Trump administration's tough sanctions policy on Tehran, according to a Tuesday announcement by Iran's judiciary.
Iran's demand for hard currency comes on the same day that its military leaders issued new threats to annihilate the United States, Israel, Britain, and Saudi Arabia. Both moves represent a further escalation in an already tense standoff between the Trump administration and Iranian mullahs.
Iranian leaders accused the United States and other Western powers of organizing a spate of popular anti-regime protests that have spread across Iran in recent weeks. The country's courts are now demanding that America pay a "$130 billion fine in damages caused by Washington's crimes to ordinary Iranian plaintiffs who have suffered from the unilateral policies of the White House and its destructive role in riots of last month," according to reports in the country's state-controlled media.
Gholam Hossein Esmayeeli, a spokesman for Iran's judiciary, claimed on Tuesday that more than 360 separate complaints had been filed in Iranian courts against the United States for harm resulting from U.S. sanctions.
Meanwhile, Iranian military leaders confirmed they will be holding joint war drills with China and Russia on Dec. 27. The confirmation of this major war exercise was accompanied by renewed threats of violence by Tehran's military brass.
Major General Hossein Salami, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, promised to "annihilate" the United States, Britain, Israel, and Saudi Arabia if these countries attempt any military action against Iran.
Warped point of view
If you are watching the insane Left on TV trying to justify taking down our Presadent you will see 3 college professors advocating it's ok. They do not take into account that Biden and his kid did exactly what they say Trump did but that seems ok to them! I hope you all understand these professors are teaching your kids
For more, check out Active Topics
This is where we talk about politics, economics, and life in general.
Subscribed users: 21900
New to the forum? Jump in, say hello, and introduce yourself here.
Subscribed users: 21855
General Chit-Chat (non-political talk)
A place to talk about anything else (discussions not related to politics or the economy).
Subscribed users: 21904
List of all sections on the forum.
Posts in the last 7 days: 7188
Posts in the last 24 hours: 975
Top 5 users in the last 24 hours: Canuckus Deploracus
(66) Lt. Rob Polans ret.
Users currently on the forum (9):
(guest visitors aren't counted)
(birthday users who are currently online are marked bold, feel free to click on their user name and send them a pm to wish them a happy birthday)