Customize

The Smoking Gun: Trump, The Least Charitable Billionaire

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by hushpuppy, Apr 12, 2011.

  1. The Internet Member

    Yes, experts can be wrong. But we can minimize our chances of relying upon a poor expert by supporting systems of robust peer review.

    A paper that survives pre-publication and post-publication review deserves more of our confidence than otherwise.

    Peer review is a minimal standard for separating bad studies from probably not that bad studies. Crap studies do get through. So we should not rely upon a single study or a cherry picked set of studies. We need to know all the studies relevant to some question.

    Nobody has time to get on top of the entire literature in some field except for experts. Thankfully some of them write review articles summarizing everything. Yet sometimes those reviews are crap. Thankfully a whole bunch of other experts will rip bad reviews up so only the good reviews survive.
  2. The Internet Member

    I've never owned a diesel. But I like the idea of better gas mileage, longer engine life, and better towing capacity. But there are some things about them that puzzle me. Like the particulate filters that trap bits of fuel that didn't fully combust.

    I remember diesels used to get soot on stuff but now the fuel is filtered and cars have these particulate traps. The cleaner burning engines can now pass emissions inspections.

    But as I understand, periodically diesel engines cycle through super hot modes that cook all the crap in the filter. Seems to me this just puts more carbon into the atmosphere. At least the soot would just land on walls or the ground. But what do I know.
  3. The Internet Member

    Since I am drunk permit me say that the free market has let me down when it comes to truck and van choices.

    Trucks from the big three look like they came from the same designer, a man with a front grille obsession. Each year the grille is bigger. Why? I tried to think how they could emphasize the grille further for next year. Maybe put the brand name across it? OMG they are gonna do that. Then what? Exclamation points? Lol I would love to see that.

    From ads I am getting the feeling the big grille coming at you is a symbol of male dominance. Having to make a big deal out machismo seems kind of gay, not that there is anything wrong with that. But for myself I would prefer something more pleasing to the eye.

    Van choices: Mercedes Sprinter, Ford Transit, Ram Promaster. Again all three look like they came from the same designer. He is a man with no fear of crosswinds.

    I have learned that car companies are all owned by some old German company called Daimler. Maybe not all, but nearly all.
  4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jenni...cerning-trumps-medical-letter_b_11565838.html


    [/quote]
  5. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...nds-sayswho-trumps-lawyers-says-who/88924750/
    Twitter schools Trump Spokeshole
    Journalist: Trump is losing in polls
    Lawyer: says who?
    Journalist: The polls. All of them.

    Twitter says who


    *walks up to Michael Cohen's door*

    "Knock knock."
    "Who's there?"
    "Says."
    "Says who?"
    "THE POLLS. ALL OF THEM."

    Twitter users are now spamming Cohen, replying “Says who?” in response to all his tweets.
  6. The Internet Member

    Jeez he didn't even give enough of a fuck to make a convincing forgery.

    Signed,
    The Internet's Mom
  7. Mann Ace Member

    No, the evidence does not stack up to one conclusion. The evidence is uncertain.
    You didn't really respond to the problems of peer review, you just reiterated that the peer process will work, so I assume you have no new thoughts on the problems. Peer review is not nearly as robust as you make it out to be, and that is a problem that needs an answer, not "Oh well, it's all good, the system works" when the system clearly is not working all that well. You ignore that to your detriment.

    As I said before, you seem to have more faith in science than the actual scientists do.

    Carry on
  8. DeathHamster Member

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/winds...mp-sandwich-artist-with-bad-reviews-1.3726274
    Who would have thought that such a tiny pickle would cause so much butthurt!
    • Like Like x 1
  9. DeathHamster Member

  10. The NYC Parks Departments response

    Update 4:29 p.m.: Parks Department spokesperson Sam Biederman provided us with the following statement regarding the Trump statue:
    NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small.



    Oh god
  11. The Wrong Guy Member

  12. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/18/trump-advisers-waged-covert-influence-campaign.html
    Provocateur? Spy? Foreign agent? Bribery?
  13. The Internet Member

    There are tens of thousands of papers in support of AGW. Papers against: few dozen maybe. That is as close to certain as science ever gets.
  14. The Internet Member

    The publication of a paper regarding the problems of peer review is a form of peer review. The responses to that paper are also peer review. Peer review never stops in science.
  15. The Internet Member

  16. The Wrong Guy Member

    There's a lot here:

    https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=Manafort Putin
  17. Mann Ace Member

    http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12293#ref1
    Notice that it states that the temperature was higher 130K years ago than today, with higher ocean levels. No humans involved in that warming trend. If the earth was warmer 130K years ago than today, that calls into question the CO2 hypothesis.

    See, it only takes one fact to destroy your hypothesis. But of course, you'll ignore it, since it doesn't accord with your prejudices.

    How much humans contribute to the warming IS the question. There is no certainty on how much, if any, we have contributed. If you say otherwise, that's because you've put yourself in an echo chamber where you can avoid alternate explanations and research and just bask in the warm glow of approval and consensus.

    It's very human to want to be accepted, but it ain't science.
  18. Mann Ace Member

    You really don't understand what I'm talking about, do you?
    Oh well,
    Carry on
  19. The Wrong Guy Member

    CBS This Morning: Paul Manafort May Be Guilty Of "Tax Evasion, Money Laundering, And Illegally Providing Funds For Lobbyists"

    https://mediamatters.org/video/2016...undering-and-illegally-providing-funds/212522

    Trump senior aide Manafort resigns after being pushed aside

    Paul Manafort, a senior aide to U.S. GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, has resigned after being pushed aside, according to reports.

    Earlier this week, Trump brought in Stephen K. Bannon, chairman of the Breitbart News website, as his campaign's chief executive, pushing aside Manafort, who had been campaign manager.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/19/trump-senior-aide-manafort-resigns-after-being-pushed-aside.html
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Disambiguation Global Moderator

  21. Disambiguation Global Moderator

  22. Disambiguation Global Moderator

  23. Volunteer to be a Trump Election Observer!
    https://www.donaldjtrump.com/lp/volunteer-to-be-a-trump-election-observer

    Help Me Stop Crooked Hillary From Rigging This Election!

    Please fill out this form to receive more information about becoming a volunteer Trump Election Observer.
    Please ensure that the information you provide in this form matches your voter registration information.
  24. The Feds are investigating Manafort as part of the investigation into US ties to corruption in the Ukraine.
  25. The Internet Member

    It was warmer when the Earth was formed also. But the Earth being warmer in the past doesn't change the fact that AGW is true.

    It would be strange for thousands of climate scientists to somehow miss your one weird devastating fact. So probably not so devastating.

    The scientific literature is not an echo chamber. You have to have real evidence before you can publish.
  26. The Internet Member

    You appear to think that problems with peer review means something significant. It is as if you are arguing:

    1. Scientists make mistakes.
    2. AGW could be a mistake.
    3. Therefore I get to decide whether AGW is true or not.
  27. Mann Ace Member

    It does imply that CO2 is not necessarily the driver of any warming we are experiencing.
    Well, the paper was published just 4 days ago. But you are right, it won't change any true believer's minds, but it is something that needs to be accounted for.

    sure son, if you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you.

    There are lots of things going on, especially in the social sciences such as where people are dividing a paper into 3 or 4 or 5 parts in order to get more publishing credit. It doesn't do diddly for the science but it looks good on the resume.

    Also, there's a thing where people game the confidence interval to get to significance. this seems to be driven by the need to publish a 'good' paper, that is one that shows statistical significance, because that is what the journals want to publish.

    You are of course unaware of any of this, and hence don't see the problem. But now that you are aware of it...

    I am saying that science is experiencing serious problems, and you seem unaware of them and yet you KNOW they are not a problem.

    Damn, I wish I were as smart as you.

    Well, that's because it is something significant. Just google "problems with peer review" and start reading. You'll learn that science is not nearly as cut and dry as you seem to think.

    It's as if, when you can't understand someone's argument, you come up with the worst scenario possible to attribute to them.
  28. White Tara Global Moderator

    • Like Like x 2
  29. The Internet Member

    So please explain to me why you think various problems in science give you some right to reject AGW.
  30. Mann Ace Member

    Well, let's establish a few facts first, if you don't mind.

    Earlier you said there were lots of papers in support of AGW. I think these three were ones you had in mind.
    Oreskes
    Powell
    Cook

    If not, let me know, but I found you had linked these three papers in the Mother Jones thread. If i understood correctly, you offered these in support of AGW.

    And, I want to clarify something. You referenced the paper that rated the candidates' understanding of climate science.
    This web site here

    And what you are saying this paper shows that, for instance, Hillary understands about 90% of climate science, Bernie 88%, Rand Paul 14% and Trump, 1%.

    So you are saying this is an accurate assessment of the candidates' understanding of climate science.

    Do I have that right? If not, let me know.
  31. A Louisiana resident from the flood zone has this message for Trump
    "“Trump. Seriously. Where is the check. Like where is the fucking check,” she asked. “My people are drowning. My co-workers and family and friends have lost everything…Give us money or GTFO.”
  32. "I’d strongly argue that Trump’s bullying, hyper-aggressive persona isn’t “masculinity,” but rather what immature males confuse with masculinity. I grew up surrounded by “men’s men”—first on the farm, then working construction and commercial fishing. I’ve met plenty of men who were confident and comfortable in themselves, and who managed to be masculine without being ignorant, belligerent assholes. Hell, the nicest guys I know do things like fix heavy machinery in Russian oil fields, freeze their assess off on fishing boats in the Bering Sea, and risk their necks in the logging industry in Canada. They’re badass guys who would never dream of bullying someone for any reason, much less their gender or religion or perceived weakness."

    "So, I think that what we see in Trump’s supporters is what happens when males grow up in the absence of these sorts of men for role models."
  33. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    This can't be real.
  34. Random guy Member

    The good side to this is that it looks like we won't have Trumph leading the Worlds largest superpower for four years, the downside is that we may have Clinton running it in stead.

    This dramatic US political faggotry is going to have ramifications even in Farawaystan where I live.
    • Like Like x 1
  35. Mann Ace Member

    Which is why we need to bitch slap Clinton and Trump hard, to make sure they know how we really feel about them. One of them will be the 'leader of the free world.'

    If that doesn't scare you, I don't know what will.
  36. The Wrong Guy Member

  37. The Wrong Guy Member

    Trump’s Empire: A Maze of Debts and Opaque Ties | The New York Times

    Quote:

    On the campaign trail, Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, has sold himself as a businessman who has made billions of dollars and is beholden to no one.

    But an investigation by The New York Times into the financial maze of Mr. Trump’s real estate holdings in the United States reveals that companies he owns have at least $650 million in debt — twice the amount than can be gleaned from public filings he has made as part of his bid for the White House. The Times’s inquiry also found that Mr. Trump’s fortunes depend deeply on a wide array of financial backers, including one he has cited in attacks during his campaign.

    For example, an office building on Avenue of the Americas in Manhattan, of which Mr. Trump is part owner, carries a $950 million loan. Among the lenders: the Bank of China, one of the largest banks in a country that Mr. Trump has railed against as an economic foe of the United States, and Goldman Sachs, a financial institution he has said controls Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, after it paid her $675,000 in speaking fees.

    Real estate projects often involve complex ownership and mortgage structures. And given Mr. Trump’s long real estate career in the United States and abroad, as well as his claim that his personal wealth exceeds $10 billion, it is safe to say that no previous major party presidential nominee has had finances nearly as complicated.

    As president, Mr. Trump would have substantial sway over monetary and tax policy, as well as the power to make appointments that would directly affect his own financial empire. He would also wield influence over legislative issues that could have a significant impact on his net worth, and would have official dealings with countries in which he has business interests.

    Yet The Times’ examination underscored how much of Mr. Trump’s business remains shrouded in mystery. He has declined to disclose his tax returns or allow an independent valuation of his assets.

    Continued here:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins