The Smoking Gun: Trump, The Least Charitable Billionaire

What facts? I just reread all your posts since #800 in this thread, and found lots of opinions and no pertinent facts. None. If I missed them, please repeat them, so I can see what you are talking about.

Dear god, are you that naive? I guess you are.

Sorry TI, but your statement is a howler, so out of touch with reality that I don't even

Have I not mentioned that facts are slippery little beasts, that seem to change and mutate according to who is viewing them? I think I have.

The graphs I've seen show the temperature rising. But of course that assumes we know what the proper temperature of earth is, and that we are measuring it right. That of course is an unwarranted assumption. The graphs also show that is was hotter 2000 years ago than it is now. What a fact.

As for the 'fact' that human greenhouse gas production is the cause is actually an uncertain thing at the moment.

So, I'd love to see the facts you offered. If I missed them, I apologize, Please bring them to my attention so we can talk about them.

If the pix weren't under copyright Id post them here.
The next best thing is the link. Lol.
http://gizmodo.com/is-this-how-the-rest-of-the-world-views-donald-trump-1785340259
Lol
Lol
Lol

Given the choice between looking at those pics of the Donald and being bitten by a giant radio active spider, I'll settle for the spider bite retrospectively of course.

Some statements about the world are subject to debate. But other statements are backed by so much evidence they are a practical certainty.

The graphs you've seen aren't enough. People can cherry pick evidence to make misleading graphs. What we want is a summary of all the evidence relevant to the climate issue over, say, the past several decades. That's about 30-40,000 published, peer reviewed papers.

I would like to know which statements you made you consider fact. I did reread it back to post #800 and saw opinions, and references to polls with no links.

Please point me to a post you made that included verifiable facts.

Thanks

That's right, Trump has plans. First he wants a large ballroom to entice the "top people" to visit.
"Trump is like a one-man Gilded Age, carrying opulence wherever he goes. We’ve never had someone running for president who is a bling artist.”"

This statement is a fact

and here is the dox to back it up:
http://climatefeedback.org/how-much-do-the-us-presidential-candidates-know-about-climate-change/

Thanks.
There is a web site that asserts what you say, that Trump is at 1% understanding on the issue.

The rest is simply an opinion of the authors of the article. That you offer this as 'proof' of Trump's understanding of climate science shows that your bullshit filters are not very finely tuned.

As I said earlier, everything you offered is simply your opinions, or someone else's opinions of the matter. Facts were absent.

Carry on

Many statements can be objectively correct or incorrect. If that were not the case, teachers could not grade test question answers.

Does it occur to you that maybe a site has other motives than the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I looked over that website and soon enough decided it was an advocacy site. There's nothing wrong with advocacy, but it has to be taken with a grain, or shaker, of salt. They are acting as advocates, not scientists, when they publish numbers such as Clinton has a 90% understanding of climate science. The thing is, that is a factoid that means nothing.

sigh

carry on

Why it would make perfect sense if Roger Ailes is really advising Donald Trump

By Emily Crockett, Vox, August 16, 2016

Quote:

The New York Times reported Tuesday that Roger Ailes — the former CEO of Fox News who resigned this summer following numerous allegations of sexual harassment — will help Donald Trump prepare to debate Hillary Clinton this fall.

The Times report was based on four anonymous sources who were briefed on the move. Sources also confirmed the news to reporters from CNN and ABC. CNN reported that Ailes’s role is informal, and that he and Trump were seen together at Trump’s New Jersey golf club this weekend.

It’s pretty stunning news, given how poorly Trump is doing with women voters and how recent the sexual harassment controversy is around Ailes. It would also seem par for the course for a candidate who has been so willing to violate basic norms of decency.

Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks strongly denied the report, though. “This is not accurate,” she said. “[Ailes] is not advising Mr. Trump or helping with debate prep. They are longtime friends, but he has no formal or informal role in the campaign.”

Trump senior adviser Jack Kingston denied it less strongly. On the one hand, he said that Trump “would not take advice on employee relations from Roger Ailes.” On the other hand, he said the Trump campaign is “under no obligation to say who’s going to be coaching him.”

But Trump himself neither confirmed nor denied it when NBC’s Chuck Todd asked him point-blank on July 24 whether Ailes would advise the campaign. “I don’t want to comment,” Trump said then. “But he’s been a friend of mine for a long time.” Trump also called Ailes a “very, very good person” and said, “A lot of people are thinking he’s going to run my campaign.”

At least 20 women have come forward saying Ailes sexually harassed them. Meanwhile, Trump himself is infamous not just for his sexist comments about women in public — from shaming women for breastfeeding and menstruation to saying that “you have to treat [women] like shit” — but also for his alleged lewd and harassing behavior toward women in private.

Like Ailes, Trump has been accused by numerous women of making objectifying remarks or unwanted sexual advances toward them. He has also been formally accused of sexual assault (by Jill Harth, who dropped her 1997 lawsuit but says she still stands by her claims) and rape (by his ex-wife Ivana, who has since walked back her claims but still never disputed the events she described in a deposition during their divorce).

So to help him prepare for a debate against the first woman presidential candidate of a major party, a man with multiple allegations of sexual impropriety against him is reportedly turning to another man with multiple allegations of sexual impropriety against him for help.

It would say a lot about Trump’s attitude toward women, and about how powerful men tend to stick together.

Trump has publicly sided with Ailes, and against victims of sexual misconduct, before

Earlier this month, Trump made the shocking admission that if his own daughter Ivanka were sexually harassed, he’d expect her to change jobs or even careers.

That was connected to earlier comments Trump made last month about Ailes. Trump that he felt “very badly” for Ailes but didn’t mention feeling badly for the women. He said Ailes has “helped” those women in their careers, and suggested that the women are lying because they wrote “wonderful things” about Ailes in books — until now, “all of a sudden,” they’re saying “horrible things.”

When Kirsten Powers of USA Today asked Donald Trump about those comments, Trump said: “There was quite a bit of fabulous things said [about Ailes by Gretchen Carlson]. It would be easier for me and more politically correct for me to say you are right. But you would think she wouldn’t say those things.”

Powers pointed out that other women have come forward besides Carlson. Trump said he didn’t know that — which means he was either lying or has a uniquely terrible memory, since he had been talking about multiple women just over a week previously.

Powers pressed Trump. What if someone had treated Ivanka the way Ailes allegedly treated those women?

“I would like to think she would find another career or find another company if that was the case,” Trump said.

He didn’t say that the man who harassed Ivanka should be punished. He didn’t say that Ivanka should come forward or that people should listen to her. He said that Ivanka alone should take on the burden of quitting her job and looking for another one — and even looking for another career entirely. Even for someone with Ivanka’s wealth, talent, and privilege, that’s an overwhelmingly difficult, life-altering thing to ask.

Meanwhile, under Trump’s scenario, it seems the man who forced Ivanka out of her job, or her career, would go unpunished and be free to harass other women.

Trump has also made some incredibly creepy comments about Ivanka specifically, including remarking that she has a “very nice figure” and that he’d date her if she weren’t his daughter.

But as Dean Obeidallah pointed out at the Daily Beast, Trump also has a history of making victim-blaming remarks about women who accuse high-profile men of sexual misconduct. He said that Bill Clinton was “really a victim himself,” and called Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky “unattractive.” He blamed Mike Tyson’s victim Desiree Washington for having been “in [Tyson’s] hotel room late in the evening at her own will.”

“Donald Trump is a serial defender of men who have engaged in sexual misconduct and is a serial shamer of the female victims who have come forward,” Obeidallah wrote.

Both of these patterns of Trump’s — treating women like sex objects, and then blaming them when they are treated like sex objects against their will — go hand in hand. They are both signs of toxic, abusive misogyny.

Source:
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/16/12503862/donald-trump-roger-ailes-debates-sexual-harassment

Related thread, about Roger Ailes:
https://whyweprotest.net/threads/ex...oss-roger-ailes-for-sexual-harassment.131978/

They are acting like fact checkers when they check the alleged facts politicians speak. They may have a bias, but a lot of facts can be checked reliably regardless. Like, the boiling point of water. If someone says it is 100 degrees Fahrenheit, I could say, "that is wrong." You, likewise, could say the same. But you and I both would have a hard time with some highly technical scientific field because we don't have the relevant expertise.

If a hundred or so scientists volunteer to fact check statements about scientific issues coming from politicians and journalists, I think that is a very good thing. We need more scientists to help correct the shitty science journalism we've been getting for quite some time.

If some of those scientists do a poor job of fact checking, a lot of their colleagues will jump on their mistakes. No doubt being called out for derpiness will be painful and thus will motivate the scientists to do their best.

If we do have a politician who consistently misrepresents and shits all over science, we should expect the world's scientists to be biased against that person. It would be weird if that were not the case. It would also be weird if the general public were not biased against that person, as they ought to be.

Hillary scrubs sexual assault pledge after allegations against Bill resurface

By Daniel Halper
August 15, 2016


The Clinton campaign has removed a statement from its Web site declaring that all survivors of sexual assault “have the right to be believed” — after being reminded that Bill Clinton was accused of rape decades ago.
The passage had been prominently featured on a page dedicated to “campus sexual assault” on HillaryClinton.com.
“I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you,” it read.
But by February, the sentence “You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you” was deleted, BuzzFeed News found.
The deletion came after new attention was focused on Juanita Broaddrick, who has accused Bill Clinton of raping her in 1978, when he was the attorney general of Arkansas.
She was 35 at the time and a volunteer in his campaign. He was 31 and married for less than three years.
The incident allegedly occurred in Broaddrick’s hotel room near Little Rock after Bill Clinton invited himself to her room, rather than meet her in the lobby, where he claimed reporters were waiting.
The future president forcibly tried to kiss her, but ended up biting her lip, according to Broaddrick.
Clinton ignored her protests, forcibly moving her onto the bed, where he raped her, she alleges.
“There was no remorse,” Broaddrick told BuzzFeed. “He acted like it was an everyday occurrence. He was not the least bit apologetic. It was just unreal.”
Hillary Clinton tweeted in September that every sex-assault survivor has “the right to be believed.”
In November, she reiterated that “every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.”
The phrase was also added to her campaign’s Web site.
At a December campaign rally in New Hampshire, a woman asked Hillary Clinton if the women who had accused her husband of sexual harassment and assault, including Broaddrick, deserved to be “believed” also.
“Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence,” Clinton responded.
It was in the weeks after that event that the site was scrubbed.
Broaddrick, now 73, has accused Hillary Clinton of enabling her husband and of threatening her to keep her allegations against Bill Clinton silent.
“It’s important for everyone to know that Hillary Clinton is not innocent in all of the coverup and the attempted attacks on all of the women that Bill Clinton abused,” Broaddrick told Boston radio station WRKO in May.
Donald Trump has repeated Broaddrick’s rape allegations and has even released video of Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey, another woman who has accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment.
In May, Trump released an Instagram ad featuring the two accusers.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/15/hillar...dge-after-rape-claims-against-bill-resurface/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbak...-be-believed?utm_term=.gg2lxdGx8n#.bneybn3bl9

Trump has a rally in a white suburb where he asks for blacks to join him because Democrats take them for granted.

Don Lemon attempts to get Trump Spokeshole to answer a question

They are acting as advocates, not fact checkers. That makes everything they say highly suspect.

Completely off point.

Well, if you read people like Matt Ridley, you'll get excellent science reporting.
There's nothing wrong with scientists volunteering to fact check articles, but when they do so for an advocacy site, they are not acting as scientists but as advocates.

Theoretically, that's how science might work. But politics intrudes into the process, to the detriment of science.

Biased? Odd word choice.

If a politician were to constantly misrepresent science, I expect the scientists would ignore them. What would be the point of engaging them, if they are that ignorant? It doesn't advance the science, and would be a waste of time.

But if that politician were in charge of the funding for the research, that would change the dynamics entirely, leading to scientists eating shit for funding.

The boiling point of water where I live is about 205F. Go figure. Science, how does it work.

I didn't know you could vote for Anonymous:

altitude cooking

is the opposite of pressure cooking in that the boiling point of water is lower at higher altitudes due to the decreased air pressure. This may require an increase in cooking times or temperature and alterations of recipe ingredients. For home cooking, this effect becomes relevant at altitudes above approximately 2000 feet (600 m). At that altitude, water boils at approximately 208 °F (98 °C) and adjustments sometimes need to be made to compensate for the reduced air pressure/water boiling point.


So altitude changes boiling point. It's not the same every where. You flunk science.

They are advocating for scientifically accurate statements from politicians and journalists. This is much like JohnnyRUclear advocating for grammatical sentences from people posting here. Johnny's advocacy does not get in the way of good grammar; quite the opposite. Same with the scientists advocating for accuracy.

You are willing to accept them at face value. I am not.

Besides, they rate a science denier at 90% accurate on climate. That's gotta tell you something.

No, I looked at the actual statements made by various politicians. A whole bunch of those statements were pretty derpy and deserved a rating of "totally wrong." Occasionally some statements were true, therefore some points.

You can read quotations from Clinton yourself on that web site to see what she got right and what she got wrong.

The scientists were judging the claims made, not the people. They actually gave candidates numbers instead of names when the quotes were judged. And back when this happened there were zillions of candidates and Trump was not so much the big deal he is now.

I went back to look at that web site once more. I noticed that the conclusions fit perfectly with your prejudices on the issues. I came away thinking that you are not skeptical enough.

Carry on

What prejudices.

Sorry, I guess I was mistaken. Calling people science deniers is not a prejudice, it's simply the truth, the whole truth and nuttin but the truth, so help me gawd

If people deny the existence of scientific evidence concerning some matter, that is not a "disagreement." Evidence is not something you can disagree with. It just is.

The published, peer reviewed evidence relevant to climate adds up to tends of thousands of papers all saying the same thing: the earth is warming due to human greenhouse gas production. Yes, a handful of papers say otherwise but those few fairly crappy papers are not enough to overturn the tens of thousands of other studies in several related but distinct fields of study.

How many of those papers have you read?

Luckily I do not need to read all those papers. Other people did that, in three independent studies. The authors of a large sample of the papers weighed in as well. And if you ask nearly any researcher doing climate related work, 95% of them agree the earth is warming due to human activity.

So what you are telling me is you trust the people who did these studies, but that you have no real way to determine their validity, other than that other people agree.

As for the 95%, it's true that most scientist, and educated laymen, agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There is somewhat less agreement as to how much, if any, humans have impacted the warming. And after that, the agreement pretty much stops.

These people are the ones who get the scientific evidence we all rely upon. They do this thing called "peer review," where they call out bullshit when they see it. They get butthurt like everybody so they specifically recognize and respect peers who handle their own butthurt graciously. The system has worked pretty well to advance human understanding of this planet.

I, as a non-expert, am not in a good position to critique climate science papers. You are probably in the same boat.

Recently I've been thinking about my next car. Maybe a cargo van I could outfit as a camper because nature is awesome. I downloaded a manual for upfitters and holy shit cars are not like they was. There's computers and sensors and drilling a hole in the wrong spot or shorting out something can make the whole car not work.

My point is, stuff is more complicated now and we have to rely upon experts. But at least we get Internet.

It's more than "people agree." The evidence all stacks up in support of one conclusion: human activity is causing a warming climate trend. So even if all the scientists dropped dead tomorrow, we would still have that mountain of evidence.

We all rely upon the testimony of others. For example, I've never been to Paris. I've never seen the Eiffel Tower. Yet I trust that structure is there in Paris. The world would be a very strange place if that were not the case.

Love the sarcasm.
Do you know about the Reproducibility Project? It had a hard time reproducing a lot of the studies it tried.

Wasn't the Wakefield paper on mercury and vaccines peer reviewed? It was in the Lancet, so I'm pretty sure it was peer reviewed. It was retracted, so there's that, but it shows it's possible to get fraudulent papers through peer review.

The peer review process is only as robust as the people who do the reviews. Considering that it's both time consuming and unpaid, I'd figure that people might not be as careful as we'd like them to be.

You might google "problems with peer review" and start reading. You may not be as certain of the efficacy of the process if you do.

My side hasn't sprung any leaks. How about yours? You keeping dry?

I learned recently my car is hackable. Cars are not supposed to be hackable. Oh well, at least it isn't a diesel.

Who can be really really wrong, so keep the salt shaker handy.

I am living in the science fiction world I read about decades ago.