Trump to sign EO to investigate...

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-12-2017, 03:57 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That's why I'm pointing out your bias.

PS  Have I ever pointed out your bias in any of your blantantly biased threads about Trump?  I don't think I have.  Also, I'm frequenlty accused of playing a game of "gotcha," but just because I'm accused of that doesn't mean it is actually true.  But, if playing the game of "gotcha" means I'm trying to prove someone wrong or leading them to reach a conclusion on their own so they will understand they are wrong, then I'm guilty as charged.  If you can prove me wrong or lead me to reach a different conclusion, be my guest.  If you can, you're actually doing me a service by forcing me to re-evaluate my belief.  If you actually do, I'll do you the courtesy of not whining about you playing "gotcha."

Please show me the unfairness in my argument that you pointed out.

And what biased threads about Trump are you talking about.

[Dill]

(05-11-2017, 06:45 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I just want to know why we're investigating this when issues with as much evidence (like Bigfoot or whether or not Nicholas Cage is a good actor) are not getting their own independent commissions.

Pat, I don't think this is a real investigation.

Normally, there is a warrant for "investigation." There is a dead body with a knife in the back. Evidence of a murder. A Police investigation is warranted. There is never a police investigation of a murder which has not been committed. There is never a search for a person who is not missing.

But in this case, there is no body. 33 Republican governors have assured us nothing untoward has occurred in their states. There are few cases of fraud--a few dozen nationwide over the three presidential elections.  Far short of "millions."

But the appearance of an investigation does serve a political purpose-- then many will think there must be a warrant. "The president is not just blowing smoke if there is an investigation. HE'S THE PRESIDENT!" etc. This also supports the Trumpster narrative that democracy is under threat by illegals--not Russians.

We may at some point hear of preliminary "results" like lists of dead people who voted and people registered in two states and thousands of registered illegals. I doubt we will hear how cross checking reduces those lists to nothing--to people with the same names, to people who weren't really dead, to people who voted and then died, etc.

This looks like Trump is making America great again. For a while. That will keep his current level of support.

[Dill]

(05-11-2017, 07:12 PM)Goalpost Wrote: Without enforcement, nobody knows the actual numbers.  The prior administration was more interested in other voting issues rather than concern itself with fraud.  And that's fine.  That is where the priorities were.
In 2009, 109 people were cited for jaywalking in Seattle.  So I guess only 109 people jaywalked that year in Seattle right?
In 2014, 29,470 people were cited for driving without a seatbelt in Tennessee.  In 2015, 103,733 people were cited.  The reason...Tennessee made an effort to enforce seatbelt violations in 2015.

Why do you say "without enforcement? And you do realize that voting integrity is the states' responsibility, right?

Sure there can be more jaywalkers than those actually caught. 
People don't have to register to cross the street. 

Individual states frequently do make reduction of voter fraud a "priority" Tennessee style. But the result has never been an increase in citations. Wisconsin is an example.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/wisconsin-2004

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-12-2017, 04:51 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Please show me the unfairness in my argument that you pointed out.

And what biased threads about Trump are you talking about.

Look, you asked me would I honestly sit here and not call someone out on their blatant bias. My answer is, have I called you out for any of your blatantly biased Trump threads? No, I haven't. So, yes, I can honestly tell that I can sit here and not tell someone they are blatantly biased.

(05-11-2017, 05:01 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I did read (listen to) what you said. Problem is, what you said sounded like a contradiction in regards to what you said in the other thread, therefore I pointed it out to note the inconsistency in your argument and provided you to challenge me on that.

You of course did and brought up "warranted suspicion". But suspicion that is warranted requires some sort of evidence for why you're suspicious, that's what makes it "warranted" in the first place.

This is from page 1 of this thread. Is this what you mean by playing "gotcha"?

[xxlt]

(05-11-2017, 04:56 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: I assume the worst of everything he does because I don't think he has a firm grasp on reality partly because of the reputation of the sources he himself says he gets his news from but also because of his upbringing and his nearly daily insane rambling on Twitter (By the way Trump's Dad had dementia. Runs in his family.). He has no idea what hardship is but claims he is the one man who can solve our problem. Generally he comes across like a shallow human being even when he's trying not to be. I also assume the worst because of his major ego. Combine that with his paper thin skin and that's a dangerous combo for any human with power. I don't believe his ambitions or vision is any deeper than a High Schooler who cares too much about being popular. Trumps ego is what fuels him that's why he can so easily waffle from one extreme to the other when it comes to subjects that put other people's beliefs to the test like abortion. The liberal celebrity crowd got old but this new conservative crowd will kiss his butt even harder than the celebs did.

But what do any of us really know anyways? I just watched a whole election cycle from primaries to the final count where he sounded like a 3rd grader and hurled insults at everybody. None of us have any idea so do we just close our eyes and go one foot in front of the other? We could do that all day and not be any more intelligent for it.

Of course everybody has bias that's human nature but to what extent the bias exists is the real question and it's completely obvious your bias controls you to the extent that I'm sure you can inform us all on what Trump's ass tastes like.

I never thought I would use this tired expression, but, "Winner, winner! Chicken dinner!"

[xxlt]

(05-11-2017, 05:39 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Everyone in here has a bias as bfine also pointed out. So what's the point in pointing out someone has a bias when it is a given everyone has a bias?

Yeah, but you're being biased!

And, voter fraud is rampant.

I've read this far in the thread and no one has said it, so I am going to go ahead and point out that Trump's voter fraud czar has been sued for voter suppression four times, and lost every time.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-voter-fraud-commission-vice-chair-kris-kobach-voter-suppression-sued-four-times-a7732346.html

This can only be interpreted as further evidence that we need Trump's CZAR investigating voter fraud! (And here's a little something for you low comprehension readers: )

[xxlt]

(05-11-2017, 06:56 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Setting up a discussion about increasing voter IDs (aka suppression).   It's the only chance the repubes have.  You see the piece about the 200K suppressed votes in WI?   That's their case study.

As early as the 1970's the same religious leaders that Barry Goldwater warned about in the 1960's were pointing out to Republican strategists that, "When fewer people vote, WE WIN!" And somehow when this phenomenon was given the moniker, "The Moral Majority!" by St. Ronald of Arseholes nobody ever challenged it. FML...

[xxlt]

(05-11-2017, 07:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: but the allegation from the president is that 3-5 million people voted illegally. 3% of all votes being illegally casted is a pretty big claim that would undoubtably have some bit of evidence. There's not even evidence that 30k voted illegally 

And if 3-5 million voted illegally that is far more than Trump's margin of "victory" which was actually a loss in the popular vote. So, it is entirely possible he won the popular vote too if this "estimate" is correct. He should want to prove it by having a recount or another vote. It is also entirely possible he lost the popular by a larger margin and the electoral too. Again, he should want to have the truth come out either way. But, since he won an election in which he claims there was fraud, and in which he claimed fraud before the election, he wants to take no meaningful action. He will, however grandstand. I am sure he will find a way to be more disingenuous, but he has set the bar high. The Russian judge gave him an 11!

Now, with all of that said, here's what really happened. There was fraud, committed by the Russians, and it got SuperTrump elected. Trump knew about it before the election, and in case it ever came out he "cleverly" (his handlers probably thought about whacking him out at this point) said that the only way Hillary would win was if there was fraud! Then, via Russian fraud, he won, and continued to scream there was fraud. One is reminded of the Poe story, "The Telltale Heart." Or of Shakespeare. Me thinks he doth protest too much.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-13-2017, 02:42 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Look, you asked me would I honestly sit here and not call someone out on their blatant bias. My answer is, have I called you out for any of your blatantly biased Trump threads?  No, I haven't. So, yes, I can honestly tell that I can sit here and not tell someone they are blatantly biased.

So you honestly don't think if someone's showing bias in an argument that their bias shouldn't be brought to the forefront to discuss the integrity of their argument?

I'm sure you've taken more than one English class and I'm sure that in at least one of those Engish classes your teacher told you to avoid biased arguments when doing research and writing essays. Why do you think your teacher told you that? When you were being blatantly biased in the essays you wrote, why did your teacher point them out to you and tell you to re-evaluate what you said? 

Whether you realize it or not, people are pointing out bias in other people's arguments all the time. Not because they are playing "gotcha" but because they want to challenge the integrity of the arguments.

A classic example of "finger pointing" is when a creationist and an athiest argue about how the universe came to be.

Quote:This is from page 1 of this thread. Is this what you mean by playing "gotcha"?

That's not playing gotcha. Playing gotcha is when your just trying to make someone look stupid rather than actually have a discussion.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-13-2017, 10:45 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: So you honestly don't think if someone's showing bias in an argument that their bias shouldn't be brought to the forefront to discuss the integrity of their argument?

I'm sure you've taken more than one English class and I'm sure that in at least one of those Engish classes your teacher told you to avoid biased arguments when doing research and writing essays. Why do you think your teacher told you that? When you were being blatantly biased in the essays you wrote, why did your teacher point them out to you and tell you to re-evaluate what you said? 

Whether you realize it or not, people are pointing out bias in other people's arguments all the time. Not because they are playing "gotcha" but because they want to challenge the integrity of the arguments.

A classic example of "finger pointing" is when a creationist and an athiest argue about how the universe came to be.

Have I pointed out your bias in one of your Trump threads? Yes or no.

Quote:That's not playing gotcha. Playing gotcha is when your just trying to make someone look stupid rather than actually have a discussion.

If that is what "gotcha" is then, no, I'm not the guy who frequently plays "gotcha."

[Dill]

(05-13-2017, 10:45 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: So you honestly don't think if someone's showing bias in an argument that their bias shouldn't be brought to the forefront to discuss the integrity of their argument?

I'm sure you've taken more than one English class and I'm sure that in at least one of those Engish classes your teacher told you to avoid biased arguments when doing research and writing essays. Why do you think your teacher told you that? When you were being blatantly biased in the essays you wrote, why did your teacher point them out to you and tell you to re-evaluate what you said? 

Whether you realize it or not, people are pointing out bias in other people's arguments all the time. Not because they are playing "gotcha" but because they want to challenge the integrity of the arguments.

A classic example of "finger pointing" is when a creationist and an athiest argue about how the universe came to be.

I didn't really want to intervene in the bias discussion, but I cannot repress the urge to make three points here.

1. Telling someone to "avoid biased arguments" begs the question of what "bias" is and how it is pointed out or avoided. A good English teacher would not simply point to a student paper and say "that's biased."  Bias is revealed in elements of writing like choice of diction and unfamiliarity with and exclusion of alternative explanations. Choice of diction includes things like name calling and prejudicial language ("When that stupid Reagan sent our troops to Lebanon")  Standards for determining bias have to be independent of any specific religious or political viewpoint. E.g., you can't just say "That's biased cuz it's Mormon!"  

2. I have heard some good debates between creationists and atheists. And I must say that it is very difficult to defend the Creationist position without bias, since it tends to rely on faith. That in itself is a kind of bias.  One could say the atheists are "biased" in favor of scientific method and empirical evidence, but that might be a misuse of the term bias, since those are things characteristically used to exclude bias.  I have often heard Creationists use this tack, claiming science is really just another form of faith.

(Generally, I have noticed that, in the Anglo world, people with the weaker position in a debate eventually frame everything as finally "opinion," and everyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's, right? What makes you think you are better than everyone else? For balance, I add that I have often found the new atheists unlearned and arrogant, and certainly subject to charges of bias and bad argument.)  

3. Finally, an argument could be "biased" and still be good, logical, sensible, informative. Worth reading. Myself, I am not particularly interested in whether an argument is biased. I am interested in whether it is logically consistent and the evidence is properly established.

[xxlt]

(05-13-2017, 12:14 PM)Dill Wrote: I didn't really want to intervene in the bias discussion, but I cannot repress the urge to make three points here.

1. Telling someone to "avoid biased arguments" begs the question of what "bias" is and how it is pointed out or avoided. A good English teacher would not simply point to a student paper and say "that's biased."  Bias is revealed in elements of writing like choice of diction and unfamiliarity with and exclusion of alternative explanations. Choice of diction includes things like name calling and prejudicial language ("When that stupid Reagan sent our troops to Lebanon")  Standards for determining bias have to be independent of any specific religious or political viewpoint. E.g., you can't just say "That's biased cuz it's Mormon!"  

2. I have heard some good debates between creationists and atheists. And I must say that it is very difficult to defend the Creationist position without bias, since it tends to rely on faith. That in itself is a kind of bias.  One could say the atheists are "biased" in favor of scientific method and empirical evidence, but that might be a misuse of the term bias, since those are things characteristically used to exclude bias.  I have often heard Creationists use this tack, claiming science is really just another form of faith.

(Generally, I have noticed that, in the Anglo world, people with the weaker position in a debate eventually frame everything as finally "opinion," and everyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's, right? What makes you think you are better than everyone else? For balance, I add that I have often found the new atheists unlearned and arrogant, and certainly subject to charges of bias and bad argument.)  

3. Finally, an argument could be "biased" and still be good, logical, sensible, informative. Worth reading.  Myself, I am not particularly interested in whether an argument is biased. I am interested in whether it is logically consistent and the evidence is properly established.

Not trying to hijack the thread but, ^ interesting...

1. Diction also gives writing and speech color, in addition to showing bias. This is why reading someone like Maureen Dowd or Paul Krugman is not only informative but also entertaining. It is why I enjoy listening to Senator Al Franken's questioning during Senate hearings. Again, informative and entertaining. And, it is why I also enjoy listening to George Will. I tend to agree with Dowd, Krugman, and Franken, but they all build strong arguments and use colorful and bias revealing language. I tend to disagree with Will, but again, he builds strong arguments and uses colorful language which also indicates his bias. Here's the thing. All of those people will agree with the FACT of paper burning at a given temperature. Now, they may disagree about whether Ray Bradbury was a good writer, whether Fahrenheit 451 was a relevant book, and why with regard to both of those questions. But none of them - in spite of their biases - would deny the reality of paper burning or dismiss it as opinion. They all deal in facts! And as a matter of fact all would probably agree at least that the idea of burning books is dangerous and to see just how dangerous one need to look no further than our current political landscape. So, intelligent people can be biased, informed, and have differing opinions and also agree on not only facts but also the landscape of the world around them and certain solutions (Will has called for "quarentining" Trump and I imagine Dowd, Krugman, and Franken would likely agree with his assessment.)

2. Yeah, nothing is more tragic than the Theist who dismisses the Atheist who, "just doesn't know God," unless it is the Atheist who dismisses the Believer who believes things that on their face are, "stupid." At one time the earth orbiting the sun, a virus, bacteria, gravity, human flight, and space exploration were all on their face "stupid" things that some men and women believed in.

3. Yes, see #1. All the persons cited there have made countless biased, good, logical, sensible, informative arguments.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-13-2017, 12:14 PM)Dill Wrote: I didn't really want to intervene in the bias discussion, but I cannot repress the urge to make three points here.

1. Telling someone to "avoid biased arguments" begs the question of what "bias" is and how it is pointed out or avoided. A good English teacher would not simply point to a student paper and say "that's biased."  Bias is revealed in elements of writing like choice of diction and unfamiliarity with and exclusion of alternative explanations. Choice of diction includes things like name calling and prejudicial language ("When that stupid Reagan sent our troops to Lebanon")  Standards for determining bias have to be independent of any specific religious or political viewpoint. E.g., you can't just say "That's biased cuz it's Mormon!"  

2. I have heard some good debates between creationists and atheists. And I must say that it is very difficult to defend the Creationist position without bias, since it tends to rely on faith. That in itself is a kind of bias.  One could say the atheists are "biased" in favor of scientific method and empirical evidence, but that might be a misuse of the term bias, since those are things characteristically used to exclude bias.  I have often heard Creationists use this tack, claiming science is really just another form of faith.

(Generally, I have noticed that, in the Anglo world, people with the weaker position in a debate eventually frame everything as finally "opinion," and everyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's, right? What makes you think you are better than everyone else? For balance, I add that I have often found the new atheists unlearned and arrogant, and certainly subject to charges of bias and bad argument.)  

3. Finally, an argument could be "biased" and still be good, logical, sensible, informative. Worth reading. Myself, I am not particularly interested in whether an argument is biased. I am interested in whether it is logically consistent and the evidence is properly established.

Yeah, well, that's just like, your bias against Trump's voter fraud executive order, man.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-13-2017, 10:57 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Have I pointed out your bias in one of your Trump threads? Yes or no.

Can't remember in all honesty.

If you did I wouldn't be saying you shouldn't be pointing out the bias in my argument. Rather I would either make the claim that the argument is not biased which I would then have to prove, or agree with you that my argument was biased and possibly justify the bias or re-evaluate my argument.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-13-2017, 03:03 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Can't remember in all honesty.

If you did I wouldn't be saying you shouldn't be pointing out the bias in my argument. Rather I would either make the claim that the argument is not biased which I would then have to prove, or agree with you that my argument was biased and possibly justify the bias or re-evaluate my argument.

I never said you shouldn't do it. I asked . . .

(05-11-2017, 05:14 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If you know everyone has biases, why the dog and pony show with the worn out open mind broken record?

Telling someone they have a biased argument is different than facetiously telling someone, "At least you have an open mind," when you really mean the opposite. Repeatedly.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-13-2017, 03:18 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I never said you shouldn't do it. I asked . . .


Telling someone they have a biased argument is different than facetiously telling someone, "At least you have an open mind," when you really mean the opposite. Repeatedly.

 This was your exact response to me.

Quote:Everyone in here has a bias as bfine also pointed out. So what's the point in pointing out someone has a bias when it is a given everyone has a bias?

You're asking that question in a way as if to say "You shouldn't point out someone's bias when it is a given everyone has biases". At least that's how it comes off to me.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-13-2017, 12:14 PM)Dill Wrote: I didn't really want to intervene in the bias discussion, but I cannot repress the urge to make three points here.

1. Telling someone to "avoid biased arguments" begs the question of what "bias" is and how it is pointed out or avoided. A good English teacher would not simply point to a student paper and say "that's biased."  Bias is revealed in elements of writing like choice of diction and unfamiliarity with and exclusion of alternative explanations. Choice of diction includes things like name calling and prejudicial language ("When that stupid Reagan sent our troops to Lebanon")  Standards for determining bias have to be independent of any specific religious or political viewpoint. E.g., you can't just say "That's biased cuz it's Mormon!"  

2. I have heard some good debates between creationists and atheists. And I must say that it is very difficult to defend the Creationist position without bias, since it tends to rely on faith. That in itself is a kind of bias.  One could say the atheists are "biased" in favor of scientific method and empirical evidence, but that might be a misuse of the term bias, since those are things characteristically used to exclude bias.  I have often heard Creationists use this tack, claiming science is really just another form of faith.

(Generally, I have noticed that, in the Anglo world, people with the weaker position in a debate eventually frame everything as finally "opinion," and everyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's, right? What makes you think you are better than everyone else? For balance, I add that I have often found the new atheists unlearned and arrogant, and certainly subject to charges of bias and bad argument.)  

3. Finally, an argument could be "biased" and still be good, logical, sensible, informative. Worth reading.  Myself, I am not particularly interested in whether an argument is biased. I am interested in whether it is logically consistent and the evidence is properly established.

I think we agree on the points you made.

My post that initiated this whole thing was originally about the apparent contradiction and inconsistency in the argument, rather than about the bias. My argument about the bias was a secondary point, not the main one. However, I decided to point out there was a bias there because it was what I perceived to be the cause that led to the contradiction. 

I'm not suggesting bias is inherently a bad thing, but rather I believe pointing out bias is important when absolute claims are being made.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-13-2017, 03:37 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote:  This was your exact response to me.



You're asking that question in a way as if to say "You shouldn't point out someone's bias when it is a given everyone has biases". At least that's how it comes off to me.

I'm not telling you shouldn't do it. I'm asking what is the point? If I think you're biased and I disagree, I'm going to disagree. If I tell you your biased and disagree what have I accomplished by telling you you're biased in addition to stating my disagreement? Nothing really except maybe communicate to you I dismiss your argument off hand as inferior because it is biased and therefore not worthy of consideration.

Example: Mainstream media. Biased. Therefore fake news. I don't even pay attention to them anymore.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-13-2017, 07:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm not telling you shouldn't do it. I'm asking what is the point?  If I think you're biased and I disagree, I'm going to disagree. If I tell you your biased and disagree what have I accomplished by telling you you're biased in addition to stating my disagreement?  Nothing really except maybe communicate to you I dismiss your argument off hand as inferior because it is biased and therefore not worthy of consideration.

Example:  Mainstream media. Biased. Therefore fake news. I don't even pay attention to them anymore.

What you would accomplish is that you would possibly make me aware of the bias in my argument, assuming I don't already know it's there. Truth is sometimes people aren't even aware of the bias in their arguments but when pointed out will adjust their opinion or simply stand by their bias. As I stated before people point out others biased arguments all the time, it's just that they don't explicitly state "you're bring biased" but rather they reveal the bias through argumentation.

I don't always explictely state "you're being biased" but sometimes I will if I feel a point is being missed.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-14-2017, 11:17 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: What you would accomplish is that you would possibly make me aware of the bias in my argument, assuming I don't already know it's there. Truth is sometimes people aren't even aware of the bias in their arguments but when pointed out will adjust their opinion or simply stand by their bias. As I stated before people point out others biased arguments all the time, it's just that they don't explicitly state "you're bring biased" but rather they reveal the bias through argumentation.

I don't always explictely state "you're being biased" but sometimes I will if I feel a point is being missed.

But, everyone has bias. You know everyone has bias. So how is it you know everyone has bias, but you may not know you have bias?