Campaign funding struggles for AOC..

[Dill]

(08-30-2019, 11:33 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Oh, gawd, the irony is delicious.

And you have education and experience in computer science, data science, information systems, software engineering, artificial intelligence, machine learning, statistics, business, meteorology, and atmospheric science?  How long does it take to get a degree as an octuple major? Is that like a 20 year track?

Well if not, he has some links to people who understand those subjects in the right way.

No "strong opinions" about the junk science which has duped 97% of the world's climate scientists.

[SunsetBengal]

(08-30-2019, 07:51 PM)Dill Wrote: Odd you jump to the conclusion my knowledge comes from "talking heads," as to opposed books, actual political science/history scholarship.

Since you mentioned it, please share with us what your Science/History scholarly accomplishments are.  

[Dill]

(08-30-2019, 08:30 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Since you mentioned it, please share with us what your Science/History scholarly accomplishments are.  

Actually, I didn't mention any personal "science/history scholarly accomplishments," just that I was reading actual scholarship, not simply listening to talking heads. Had I such accomplishments, I'd not share them, partly to preserve my privacy and partly because I think that on an anonymous message board like this, it's just lazy to argue from authority, regardless of the subject; it's a way of claiming what one can't otherwise earn.

Scientific/scholarly accomplishments may place one in a position to make better arguments on the relevant subjects than someone with few or no such accomplishments, but we still have to judge each post/argument on its own merits, not its author's CV.  Expertise ought to be seen, not heard.

On the other hand, I am always ready to identify/discuss my sources of knowledge/information and how I have incorporated them into support for an argument.  And I am always ready to discuss what makes for "quality" in an argument.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-30-2019, 07:51 PM)Dill Wrote: Odd you jump to the conclusion my knowledge comes from "talking heads," as to opposed books, actual political science/history scholarship.

Not clear what talking heads you could be referring to, or how you could "know" they're ignorant--though the stance is not surprising given that selective hyper-skepticism of media is a feature of Trump/post-truth era. To me you're still the guy who thinks Gore would have invaded Iraq, "mid-level" bureaucrats would direct US foreign policy under Trump, Trump's character would be changed by the gravity of his office, and the legal critique of felon disenfranchisement is just "race baiting." And then there is all you "know" about climate change, from the WSJ  (they're "informative" at least!) and other friends of Exxon. You are clearly an "independent" who can be counted upon to defend Republican talking points.

In this thread you are calling mere claims "explanations."  People who don't respond to those claims as divine fiat you style as dis-informed, ignorant, "pretending not to be" etc.  That's just truthiness.

I don't doubt you believe deeply you are right in all these matters and that others are "ignorant" and "disinformed," just as you knew you were right about about Trump's character and who would "really" make foreign policy in his administration, but people who know how to debate don't simply play claims like trump cards and insult other players.  They support claims with demonstration, they take extra care to make sure they don't misunderstand others. Little incentive to do that if one assumes others are just "ignorant" from the get go.

Christ, I forgot about the career staffers directing foreign policy crap . . . and his expertise in military invasions and nation building. All based upon education and experience, no doubt.

[Dill]

(08-30-2019, 11:23 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Christ, I forgot about the career staffers directing foreign policy crap . . . and his expertise in military invasions and nation building. All based upon education and experience, no doubt.

Just to flesh out a previous point: If he thought it reasonable that Gore could have invaded Iraq too, that means he never got how the rationale for that invasion was constructed by specific, neocon players SOLELY WITHIN Bush's administration, not on the basis of non-partisan groundwork laid by the intel community that any president would likely have acted on.  Virtually every "talking head" except Sean Hannity understands this.

That's not a good ground to be standing on when you claim "the ignorant electorate " has been "handled" and you don't listen to the talking heads because you "know" they are all wrong--unlike others on this message board who are "anchored in disinformation."

I could bring up more examples, but the mystery is why the manifest LACK of knowledge is announced via pointed accusations of others' ignorance.
If I disagree with someone's take on AOC or donor influence on voters, I can just state where the disagreement is. I don't feel an additional need to claim the other person is therefore "ignorant" and "disinformed" and "peddling fake news," while I, by some special dispensation, can just tell truth from falsehood.  Just can.  

[Arturo Bandini]

Just watched knock down the house on Netflix and I really liked it. Seeing these women fight starting from scratch with just their faith to change the world, it was fantastic.

Hats off to them.

[JustWinBaby]

(09-02-2019, 02:41 PM)Dill Wrote: Just to flesh out a previous point: If he thought it reasonable that Gore could have invaded Iraq too

And I assume all you arm-chair geniuses have been watching the recent hearings and realized "yep, JustWinBaby totally had it totally wrong...."

But anyone can go back to the Russian Collusion thread and see guys get your opinions and ideas from HuffPo.  That's why I rarely post here anymore - if I want to know what you think I can read the comment section of Politico.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-30-2019, 07:51 PM)Dill Wrote: Odd you jump to the conclusion my knowledge comes from "talking heads," as to opposed books, actual political science/history scholarship.

No, I've read your posts...

[JustWinBaby]

(08-30-2019, 07:51 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't doubt you believe deeply you are right in all these matters and that others are "ignorant" and "disinformed,"

I've watched you guys for the last 3 years gobble up "fake news" like listeners of Hannity or Rush that you mock.  I could probably dig it up - several posters [if not you] had it on "good authority" Trump would be impeached within a year.  There was very much, very bad things, to come on "Russian Collusion".  And yet you guys act like you weren't duped and misled, and continue to rely on the same sources.  Why should anyone take you seriously?


I don't pay attention to those hacks, either. That's why I quit posting here.  If you think you're better than listeners of Hannity or Rush, then maybe start acting like it.  Maybe actually go learn something and not take what Rachel Maddow says as gospel.

[GMDino]

(12-04-2019, 07:21 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I've watched you guys for the last 3 years gobble up "fake news" like listeners of Hannity or Rush that you mock.  I could probably dig it up - several posters [if not you] had it on "good authority" Trump would be impeached within a year.  There was very much, very bad things, to come on "Russian Collusion".  And yet you guys act like you weren't duped and misled, and continue to rely on the same sources.  Why should anyone take you seriously?


I don't pay attention to those hacks, either. That's why I quit posting here.  If you think you're better than listeners of Hannity or Rush, then maybe start acting like it.  Maybe actually go learn something and not take what Rachel Maddow says as gospel.

There are a few of us on here who do "go learn something" and post the source material.

Dill, for one, gets told he "uses too many words" when he is explaining in great detail his position and why.

[BmorePat87]

I remember my first beer

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-04-2019, 07:12 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Actually, all you need is a degree in statistics and some experience with modeling.  The rest is unnecessary - you don't have to be able to drive a car to build a road.  But that's clearly all over your head. 

We've established you talk out of your ass, and this isn't the first time.  The above is, again, a deflection of your ignorance.

I guess you will be walking to the job site or taking public transportation? Because most people drive to the job site. And clearly you’ve never seen or understand how a modern road is built because you need to be able to drive a dump truck (at a minimum) unless you’re planning to levitate all the asphalt in place with that big brain of your’s. Before that someone needs to drive a grader. So driving is really more of an implied task than a specified task.

Now if what you wrote about all you need is a degree in statistics and an understanding of modeling were true then all research across all fields could be produced by statisticians. But, clearly it isn’t. Why? Because you need more than a degree in statistics. The most important thing you need is education and experience in the subject matter you’re researching. Clearly you do not. Which is why your previous statement is so hilariously ironic.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-04-2019, 10:22 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I remember my first beer

Then you didn't do it right.

[CJD]

[GMDino]

(12-06-2019, 09:44 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Then you didn't do it right.

No, that's the last beer most can't remember.  

[Bengalzona]

I have found that one way someone can prove they are intelligent is the ability to make their point without outright insulting others in the process.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-11-2019, 09:57 AM)GMDino Wrote: No, that's the last beer most can't remember.  

Ain’t that the truth. I do remember my last beer ever though. Well maybe not ever. I plan on jumping off the wagon at 75. All are invited. “Arthur” will be playing on a loop.

[GMDino]

(12-11-2019, 10:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Ain’t that the truth. I do remember my last beer ever though. Well maybe not ever. I plan on jumping off the wagon at 75. All are invited. “Arthur” will be playing on a loop.

I drank twice this year.  Once at our daughter's wedding (two rum and cokes) and one at our local pub halloween party (multiple long island ice teas  )

Didn't really mean to quit drinking just didn't have a taste for it when I was out and didn't have many parties to go to.

Edit to add that I cannot seem to forget when I drink either. Never "blacked out" or forgot anything. It's a damn curse.