liberal american trash is dying of and gets replaced by africans and muslims
We get to have a lot more sex though. |
|
|
|
trying to impeach trump on basis of biden corruption is complete nonsense
There is tons of evidence that suggests the main reason he withheld the funds and WH meeting was to gain a political advantage in the next election. For example, why would he make a public statement from Ukraine about opening the investigation a requirement before giving Ukraine a meeting in the White House?.... "Evidence that suggests" is not evidence. You are trying to make inferences as to motive. reacting aggressive on corruption no mattter and even especially if its caused by your own citizen is an important and valuable mindset of american imperialism, you can't be weak on corruption especially if its your own, america would lose only trustworthyness with its allies, trump did everything wrong stupid demorats, can't admit it, because they don't get a black president's cock to suck. The funds were released in 2017 and 2018, no problem. Biden announced he was running in late April 2019. Biden had a huge lead by June, which was when Trump made his requests and froze ~$400m in military aid that was ordered by congress and approved by the DOD. He wanted the president of Ukraine, a corrupt country, to make a public announcement (on CNN was the plan) that Ukraine was opening an investigation into the DNC and Biden/Burissma in exchange for the $400 million and a White House Meeting. No other investigation requests. Just the DNC and the Bidens. This was all confirmed by career, non partisan officials and officials appointed by Trump under oath. There are also transcripts and emails that support all of the above. In Trumps defense, there's no evidence of him explicitly saying he was doing it because of the election. Also, after he found out he was being investigated by congress he did explicitly say 'I want nothing, no quid quo pro' to the EU ambassador and then released the funds. In my opinion it's painfully obvious that his primary motivation was to make his political opponent look bad. I think it's just second nature for him to do whatever he can to trash the reputation of anyone who stands in his way by any means necessary. |
|
|
|
|
Religion has probably been around since whatever point the mammals we've evolved into became intelligent enough to start making up answers to things we didn't know, like what happens when you die.
Between 1 and 2 million years ago is my guess.
Imagine all the forks and altcoins of religion that have been forgotten forever but influenced todays religion somehow.
|
|
|
|
2) Will Trump be able to convince Boris to join him in this war, if yes will Boris be forced to delay Brexit?. Not positive how it works, but I think if we go to war, NATO goes to war, and UK is part of NATO. I don't think any country could just say 'we're going to sit this one out'. I don't think it will affect Brexit. Not all EU members are NATO members. I don't think the EU is capable of 'going to war'. 3) Does Iran have nuclear weapons and if they do have will they target it on US and their allies.
The Obama deal ensured that it would take Iran about a year to produce enough Uranium to be a real threat, and the deal ended mid 2018, so it's possible I guess, but that's just for the raw material so I think it's unlikely. At the time some people said maybe in a couple years, some said it could take them up to 10 years to develop the technology. 4) Why aren’t the world leaders trying and getting both countries to back off before a full blown war starts.
Some probably are. I wouldn't blame them for doing it privately in Trumps case. Doing it publicly could easily backfire. Turkey and Saudi Arabia share borders with Iran and Israel isn't far, I would imagine they are all working closely with our intelligence. I wouldn't be surprised if Putin was also trying to calm down Iran right now. If we go to war with Iran there will be no real winners. |
|
|
|
I think they're just trying to stop a measles outbreak from getting any worse. What do you think they're trying to do? If you were there and unvaccinated, or you had young children who hadn't received the shot, would you not put the red flag out and thank whoever brought you the free medication? No you're not, you are avoiding addressing the issue by deflecting to my personal opinion which is totally irrelevant.
I think you're opinion on what they should've done is very relevant to your opinion that they shouldn't have done what they did. My opinion is vaccinations should not be compulsory. This is compulsory vaccination no matter how much you want to imagine the bad thoughts away. People should have a right to choose what goes into their bodies. Bodily autonomy is about as critical of a right as anyone has. The rest of the debate is irrelevant to this fact. Would you be ok if they said "There's a serious measles out break right now. We are declaring a state of emergency. All businesses are closed and everyone should stay in their homes for the next 2 days. If you haven't received the MMR vaccine you should put a red flag on your door and we will send someone to administer it for free." |
|
|
|
"Evidence that suggests" is not evidence.
Yeah. It literally is. |
|
|
|
I think they're just trying to stop a measles outbreak from getting any worse. What do you think they're trying to do? If you were there and unvaccinated, or you had young children who hadn't received the shot, would you not put the red flag out and thank whoever brought you the free medication? Does intent have anything to do with results? It doesn't matter what "I would do". Once again you just pretend this is not compulsory regardless of wide reports of them going door to door, a state issued order clearly stating it is compulsory, and a 2 day curfew where they shut down everything so they make sure you are in your home when they get there. Keep pretending. Slurp slurp.
Honestly just curious what your opinion is. No you're not, you are avoiding addressing the issue by deflecting to my personal opinion which is totally irrelevant. I think you're opinion on what they should've done is very relevant to your opinion that they shouldn't have done what they did. |
|
|
|
Polls are not worthless, they are just one step above worthless. An indicator at best.
BTW twitchy if you are going to quote me in your sig please at least link the source.
An indicator is exactly what they are. I wish I would've just said that pages ago. I'll add the link, and I'll remove the whole thing if it bothers you. I just think it's funny. |
|
|
|
Notice that the source is Twitter. Is Twitter a legally accepted source of legal presidential speech? In other words, if Trump gets on Twitter, and orders the military to do military exercises, does the military have to obey if there is no standard form of orders sent by the President to them through standard military channels? Anybody can get on Twitter and say the same things that Trump did. So what? There is no harm done against anybody. Name the man or woman in Trump's threat. Iran is a corporation of sorts. It isn't any man or woman. And Trump did absolutely nothing legal or illegal that threatens any man or woman through his Tweet. If somebody wants to be scared of what Trump said, that's his stupidity, not Trump's. After all, it is Trump the man who Tweets... not Trump the President.  Trump tweets are considered 'official statements'. Same as if he addressed the Nation on TV or talked to a reporter or released a written statement. So, the military starts their military exercises if Trump orders them to do so, over Twitter, but not through regular channels? No. They're just official statements. There are different protocols for different types of military orders, I think he has to call a red phone somewhere that only ever rings when it's the president. If he wants to order a nuclear attack while he's playing golf, he'd have to use the nuclear football. Not sure what the protocol is for assassinations like yesterday. He was probably in some secure room at Mar A Lago being updated the whole time. |
|
|
|
Polls are well known to be among the weakest form of empirical data and highly vulnerable to manipulation or even unintentional bias. There are so many variables that can be manipulated to get a desired result. At the end of the day most polling companies will produce whatever data you pay them to produce.
I don't think opinion polling is considered empirical data, outliers happen and there is always a margin of error. There's plenty of historical data that shows that polling companies have been pretty accurate over the past few decades. To figure out how accurate political opinion polls are, all we have to do is look at the historical data since we know the results of the actual election. This chart takes weighted average of all reputable polling companies, there's also data on each individual company and other data that could be considered, but, in general, the polls are able to get within a few %.  There's a ton of interesting stuff out there about how polling works, I understand the skepticism but make sure you take a good look at how they work and how accurate their results are over a large sample size. I did a couple of these free courses a while ago, they're quick and easy and might change your opinion on polling in general. https://academy.maristpoll.marist.edu/collections?category=coursesPolls are reliable, just look at these other statistics processed just like these polls to prove the polls are statistically polling correctly, statistically speaking. Who gets to decide which polling companies are reputable? That is not even to mention how polls are reported on. Unless you are an expert in statistics and polling like 90% of people are not, there are way too many variables to know if data is manipulated in all of these types of data aggregation. If you are sick, you can hyper focus in on one blood cell and that is the fact of the matter for that cell there, but it is not telling you much about the rest of the body. This inversion of context and subject or hyper focus on one or the other is easily used to obfuscate the big picture, and polls as well as statistics are known to be easily massaged to get a desired result. You don't need to be an expert in statistics to understand that at the very least polls are not just worthless. The most simple way is to compare the polls from right before the election with the actual result of the election. (electoral college is a different since it's 50 different elections each weighted differently, I'm talking about a single election where each person polls responds A or B) If a poll has 2% more responses saying they will vote Democrat than Republican, and a Republican wins by 3%, that's a 5 point error. The same goes if the Democrat won by 7%, it would still be a 5 point error. Reputable polling companies average around 5-point errors after several years or decades of 100+ elections a year. I think the general public hold pollsters to unreasonable standards. For example if one poll has a Democrat winning by 1% and another poll has a Republican winning by 10%, and the Republican ends up winning by 1% everyone would just conclude that the first poll was wrong and the second was right. It's not about wrong or right. It's about getting the average error % as low as possible. |
|
|
|
I think you just need to at my question, about double blind. If you know statistics, testing and a bit about experiments and populations, your answer is right there.
Sorry, didn't mean to ignore it. Ever heard of double blind testing? Has it occurred to you THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A REASON WHY DOUBLE BLIND TESTING IS REQUIRED?
Yes. Yes. I'm interested in your thoughts still. Are you saying opinion polling in general is just useless? Or that the guys that compile all the individual polls into a data set are useless?
There's always a bias in any collection technique, and they are always conscious of it and working to minimize it. That's part of what goes into determining margin of error.
Do you think the bias involves the personal opinions of the polling companies? Liek they're doing it intentionally? I know Trump loves to imply that it's the Cable News Networks just trying to make him look bad with polls, that's not how they work though.
Polls are well known to be among the weakest form of empirical data and highly vulnerable to manipulation or even unintentional bias. There are so many variables that can be manipulated to get a desired result. At the end of the day most polling companies will produce whatever data you pay them to produce.
I don't think opinion polling is considered empirical data, outliers happen and there is always a margin of error. There's plenty of historical data that shows that polling companies have been pretty accurate over the past few decades. To figure out how accurate political opinion polls are, all we have to do is look at the historical data since we know the results of the actual election. This chart takes weighted average of all reputable polling companies, there's also data on each individual company and other data that could be considered, but, in general, the polls are able to get within a few %. There's a ton of interesting stuff out there about how polling works, I understand the skepticism but make sure you take a good look at how they work and how accurate their results are over a large sample size. I did a couple of these free courses a while ago, they're quick and easy and might change your opinion on polling in general. https://academy.maristpoll.marist.edu/collections?category=courses |
|
|
|
trying to impeach trump on basis of biden corruption is complete nonsense
There is tons of evidence that suggests the main reason he withheld the funds and WH meeting was to gain a political advantage in the next election. For example, why would he make a public statement from Ukraine about opening the investigation a requirement before giving Ukraine a meeting in the White House? What would an investigation led by a corrupt country even prove? If it really was just a coincidence that his most likely 2020 opponent was involved, and Trumps actions were driven purely by a desire to stop corruption, then I agree with you. It's clear that was not the case though. |
|
|
|
Notice that the source is Twitter. Is Twitter a legally accepted source of legal presidential speech? In other words, if Trump gets on Twitter, and orders the military to do military exercises, does the military have to obey if there is no standard form of orders sent by the President to them through standard military channels? Anybody can get on Twitter and say the same things that Trump did. So what? There is no harm done against anybody. Name the man or woman in Trump's threat. Iran is a corporation of sorts. It isn't any man or woman. And Trump did absolutely nothing legal or illegal that threatens any man or woman through his Tweet. If somebody wants to be scared of what Trump said, that's his stupidity, not Trump's. After all, it is Trump the man who Tweets... not Trump the President. Trump tweets are considered 'official statements'. Same as if he addressed the Nation on TV or talked to a reporter or released a written statement. |
|
|
|
TL;DR
"They used red flags, so the published emergency orders mandating vaccination are null and void. Slurp slurp slurp!"
Yeah, Nazis certainly weren't the type to force people to stay in their homes or to subject people to endure medical treatment against their will. I mean informed consent laws certainly were not created in a direct response to Nazi medical experimentation or anything.
I think they're just trying to stop a measles outbreak from getting any worse. What do you think they're trying to do? If you were there and unvaccinated, or you had young children who hadn't received the shot, would you not put the red flag out and thank whoever brought you the free medication? Does intent have anything to do with results? It doesn't matter what "I would do". Once again you just pretend this is not compulsory regardless of wide reports of them going door to door, a state issued order clearly stating it is compulsory, and a 2 day curfew where they shut down everything so they make sure you are in your home when they get there. Keep pretending. Slurp slurp. Honestly just curious what your opinion is. |
|
|
|
TL;DR
"They used red flags, so the published emergency orders mandating vaccination are null and void. Slurp slurp slurp!"
Yeah, Nazis certainly weren't the type to force people to stay in their homes or to subject people to endure medical treatment against their will. I mean informed consent laws certainly were not created in a direct response to Nazi medical experimentation or anything.
I think they're just trying to stop a measles outbreak from getting any worse. What do you think they're trying to do? If you were there and unvaccinated, or you had young children who hadn't received the shot, would you not put the red flag out and thank whoever brought you the free medication? |
|
|
|
I'm not sure what the alternative here was. Soleimani was a terrorist greater than Osama bin Laden who was involved in nearly 20% of the deaths during the Iraqi War. He has American blood on his hands and was continually coordinating terrorism attacks on U.S. troops. His killing was without a doubt the correct move. Was the alternative to let him continually kill Americans just because it isn't politically convenient with the left? Trump does not want a war with Iran and bringing up his tweets about Obama years ago is ignoring the context that Iran has gotten exponentially more aggressive which includes killing an innocent American civilian and storming one of the biggest U.S. embassy's in the world shouting "Death to America". In addition to all of this, Iran is engaged in military drills with China and Russia, two of the most corrupt countries with nuclear arms. Iran aggression is not a good thing and for three corrupt countries to be engaged in military drills while one is actively killing Americans all but calls for US intervention. The guy was responsible for hundreds of American deaths over the past decade and obviously the fact he's dead is a victory. But I think the way it went down, a bunch of shit talking followed up by a high level assassination is just going to result in Iran talking some shit and killing some Americans, and then boom, 10 more years of war in the middle east. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I just don't see either side backing down at this point. Pissing matches not diplomacy is in our future. |
|
|
|
If the following is true, I don't think this is really a ponzi scheme "scam" as the owner can't just run off with the balance. From the website: Am I going to make money?
If you are early enough you can profit. But most people will be late and lose. Nobody knows how many people will eventually buy in. This contract will live as long as the Ethereum blockchain is running.
What is my position in the Ponzi?
Your position is determined by what percentage of the total Ponzi tokens you hold. These positions can change over time as people purchase or sell tokens.
How do I know this is real?
The smart contract is fixed and immutable on the Ethereum blockchain. Anybody can audit the code and confirm the behavior. See the links in the helpful links section for source code and contract details
I guess this is off topic a bit, but what if they had a provably fair system that determined when the ponzi would collapse, each investment was x% less likely to trigger the collapse and the owner always profited x% of total investments. Would it still be a ponzi scheme? It sounds kind of fun. |
|
|
|
Now that the elections are coming at 2020 he is going to be more offensive to foreign countries.
The US politicians especially the Republicans are feeding their voters and try to convince them by threatening other countries around the world in order to show them dominance. Trump is doing this as well now.
From what I know of Trump he would never go to war with Iran. He really does seem to make the connection that it results in loss of human life, and wants to avoid that. Trump might just be one of the nicest Presidents we've had.
Update: Confirmed Trump ordered the attack. Then he tweeted a picture of the American flag.Well someone just launched a few rockets into the Baghdad airport and killed 7 Iranian Military Officials... Iran is blaming Trump. Pentagon staying quiet. Things are escalating. |
|
|
|
... And they are working in a biased environment. Ever heard of double blind testing? Has it occurred to you THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A REASON WHY DOUBLE BLIND TESTING IS REQUIRED? These assertions you have made are commonly heard, sure. But they are worthless, and we all know it. Are you saying opinion polling in general is just useless? Or that the guys that compile all the individual polls into a data set are useless? There's always a bias in any collection technique, and they are always conscious of it and working to minimize it. That's part of what goes into determining margin of error. Do you think the bias involves the personal opinions of the polling companies? Liek they're doing it intentionally? I know Trump loves to imply that it's the Cable News Networks just trying to make him look bad with polls, that's not how they work though. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
