The Omarosa Chronicles

It’s not relevant what % like Trump or if it’s 50%. People misuse the word bias all the time.

In order for a judgement (positive, negative, neither) to be biased, it needs to be unwarranted or unfair. It depends on the actual merits of the person being judged.

I dislike Hitler. That doesn’t mean I’m biased against him.

This applies both in the way most people use it day to day and also statistically. A parameter has a certain value. If the statistic consistently estimates the parameter’s value to be too high, it’s biased. If it consistently estimates it to be too low, it’s biased. But the value of the parameter is what it is.

Trump has a certain value. If he’s an awful person and a lot of people dislike him, that doesn’t mean they’re biased or unfair.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ric Flair said:
High tax rates, both corporate and individual. Massive overregulation. And speech after speech making it clear that his was an administration that was not business friendly. 
Click to expand...


So, basically, the conservative rallying cry? Of which we have mountains of evidence that tax cuts themselves aren't a magic bullet for boosting the economy?

The bolded is particularly interesting, given how many Republican elected officials and even members of the administration are now arguing "don't listen to what the president says, it's our policies that matter!"

Interesting they didn't extend that courtesy to Obama.

 
An aside about "science" and how it works:

I "started" watching "The Most Unknown" on Netflix late last night.  I fell asleep after the first 15 minutes because I was tired, not lack of interest.  But it is about different scientists in different backgrounds speaking with each other, then one of the scientists will go speak with another in a different field, then that one will go to another.  

In the first conversation, an American micro-biologist is speaking with an Italian physicists looking for "dark matter".  They were having an informal conversation about where and how to look for "dark matter", and the micro-biologist asked him something along the lines of "do you ever dream about finding it in a place you'd never have guessed?".  And the Italian physicist shot back with a quick "NO.  There is no guessing.  We perform experiments and analyze the data.  We will then design the next experiment off of that.  We don't 'guess' "

I thought it was a pretty interesting conversation.  Anyway....

 
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  I'm a registered Republican in Nebraska and Kasich voter in the 2016 primary.  If Kasich had won, I would have voted for him over Hillary.

That said: I had absolutely zero hesitance when it came to voting for Hillary over Trump.  None.  Why?  Because Trump is not qualified, or worthy, of carrying the jock strap of the President of the United States of America. And yet, here he is; the President of the United States of America. 

Why was he elected?  (1) Because thoughtful, common sense, republicans were split between a large field of qualified candidates. (2) There is a large enough segment of "deplorables" to make a difference in Republican primaries when "1" is possible.  (3) Media, yes even the "fake news", gave constant focus to Trump and his campaign giving it legitimacy.

@Ric Flair you have admitted that Trump says a lot of stupid stuff.  But you can forgive it because of the tax cuts and deregulation (this makes sense).  But my question to Trump enthusiasts is, wouldn't any other Republican President get you the same?  Without the BS?  The answer is most likely yes.  Cruz, Rubio, or Bush (possibly Kasich although I'm reserving hope) would have signed the tax bill; Trump didn't draft it, he just signed it.  Responsible deregulation may have followed suit.  By "responsible", I mean cutting regulations with a valid explanation and research vs. Obama was for it, we hate it.

My point is this.  For as many republicans that "don't like the stupid stuff Trump says", or the the amount of Republicans that were choosing the "least of two evils between the worst candidates in history", there sure seems to be a lot of excitement for Trump running again in 2020.  That doesn't make any sense to me.

EDIT: I remember watching the Republican Primary Debate when Trump mentioned, intuitively, the size of his penis.  I looked straight at my wife and said WTF????  That was just the beginning of the s#!t show....  

#walkaway

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mrandyk said:
Still waiting on the demonstration of having a better understanding of how science works than the scientists...
Click to expand...
And the proof that Obama said the latest economic numbers were impossible

And the evidence that the intelligence agencies are conspiring against Donald Trump

And an explanation for which policies retarded the economic recovery under Obama

And a map to where Hillary hid the bodies...

I think we'll be waiting for sometime as Mr. Flair is more interested in doing the old Gish Gallop than actually backing up all of his erroneous claims.

 
funhusker said:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  I'm a registered Republican in Nebraska and Kasich voter in the 2016 primary.  If Kasich had won, I would have voted for him over Hillary.

That said: I had absolutely zero hesitance when it came to voting for Hillary over Trump.  None.  Why?  Because Trump is not qualified, or worthy, of carrying the jock strap of the President of the United States of America. And yet, here he is; the President of the United States of America. 

Why was he elected?  (1) Because thoughtful, common sense, republicans were split between a large field of qualified candidates. (2) There is a large enough segment of "deplorables" to make a difference in Republican primaries when "1" is possible.  (3) Media, yes even the "fake news", gave constant focus to Trump and his campaign giving it legitimacy.

@Ric Flair you have admitted that Trump says a lot of stupid stuff.  But you can forgive it because of the tax cuts and deregulation (this makes sense).  But my question to Trump enthusiasts is, wouldn't any other Republican President get you the same?  Without the BS?  The answer is most likely yes.  Cruz, Rubio, or Bush (possibly Kasich although I'm reserving hope) would have signed the tax bill; Trump didn't draft it, he just signed it.  Responsible deregulation may have followed suit.  By "responsible", I mean cutting regulations with a valid explanation and research vs. Obama was for it, we hate it.

My point is this.  For as many republicans that "don't like the stupid stuff Trump says", or the the amount of Republicans that were choosing the "least of two evils between the worst candidates in history", there sure seems to be a lot of excitement for Trump running again in 2020.  That doesn't make any sense to me.

EDIT: I remember watching the Republican Primary Debate when Trump mentioned, intuitively, the size of his penis.  I looked straight at my wife and said WTF????  That was just the beginning of the s#!t show....  

#walkaway
Click to expand...


I was a Rubio supporter. But Trump is a thousand times better than Hillary. He says stupid and insensitive things. She is one of the most corrupt people on the planet and should be in jail.

 
mrandyk said:
Still waiting on the demonstration of having a better understanding of how science works than the scientists...
Click to expand...


How many times have the numbers been ‘adjusted’ to make them show the warming they claim is happening?

How many times has it been proven that they are lying about the results and intimidating any dissenters?

Science seeks truth. The whole global warming fraud is built upon a preconceived notion that the data has to be manipulated to fit. That’s the opposite of science.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top