[Winstonm]

The Crazoids are still in charge of a majority of states - and that is very bad news.

Quote

Seven Republican members of the U.S. Senate voted to find former President Donald Trump guilty of inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol that left five people dead. By the end of this week, six of the seven may have faced censures from local and state Republican parties back home because of those votes.

[y66]

One day -- it's like a miracle -- Trump will disappear too.

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2021-February-16, 17:17, said:

I really don't want anyone stupid enough to believe the election was stolen from Donald Trump to have the power to arrestshoot me.

You must be white Winston. I FYP for the rest of the population.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2021-February-16, 20:26, said:

This is a strange article.

You are not thinking like a statistician Ken. Look at the premise of the study. Each of the 50 Senators for each party was asked one question. There are 9 questions so that means that each bar represents roughly 5 Senators. The variance (noise) for such a small sample size outweighs any useful data response you are likely to get. So take the results with a pinch of salt. It's a bit of fun for mass media consumption but do not think for one moment that it actually holds any mathematical relevance. Maybe Helene should apply for a job at Data for Progress; it seems like they need a new statistician there badly.

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2021-February-17, 11:54, said:

One day -- it's like a miracle -- Trump will disappear too.

This is a picture of:
A) Trump Library? B) Rush Limbaugh Memorial C) Laura Ingraham's soul? D) Sean Hannity's moral compass?

[kenberg]

Zelandakh, on 2021-February-17, 14:47, said:

You are not thinking like a statistician Ken. Look at the premise of the study. Each of the 50 Senators for each party was asked one question. There are 9 questions so that means that each bar represents roughly 5 Senators. The variance (noise) for such a small sample size outweighs any useful data response you are likely to get. So take the results with a pinch of salt. It's a bit of fun for mass media consumption but do not think for one moment that it actually holds any mathematical relevance. Maybe Helene should apply for a job at Data for Progress; it seems like they need a new statistician there badly.

Now I really don't understand. Senators were asked? I didn't, and don't, think so.

I saw

Quote

In an experiment for Data For Progress, we told respondents that Congress was considering a COVID-19 stimulus proposal supported by all 50 Democratic senators. Via random assignment, respondents were told that the proposal would include direct payments of either $600, $1,400, or $2,000. To analyze the salience of bipartisanship, respondents were then told that the plan had support from a randomly assigned number of Republican senators between 0 and 10. We asked respondents whether they would support or oppose the proposal.

I did not take that to mean that senators were asked, I understood "respondents" as random people who were told a story about what senators had agreed to.

Whatever the case, it all looks fishy to me (where "fish" means carp, not trout). But they were polling senators?

I skimmed it quickly and I still think the respondents are random people. The study tells random people about how many Republican senators agree to a given proposal, but the numbers are artificial, randomly chosen from 0 to 10. Then these respondents are asked if they support that proposal. I do not see that any senators were asked anything.

Anyway, we seem to agree that there is not much of value in this. I am curious if I am really misunderstanding something basic here as to who was asked what.

[helene_t]

Yeah, Ken is right, they polled some random people, first manipulated them by telling them that X republican senators supported it, and then asked the same random people whether they would support the stimulus. The objective was apparently to investigate to what extent people let their stand on issues influence by partisanship.

[pilowsky]

Winstonm, on 2021-February-17, 15:10, said:

This is a picture of:
A) Trump Library? B) Rush Limbaugh Memorial C) Laura Ingraham's soul? D) Sean Hannity's moral compass?

I think that with Limbaugh dying of smoking-related lung cancer, and Trump being tossed from the White House, we could be witnessing the start of the Decline and Fall of the Loman empire.

I think that's what happens to salesmen in the end.

As for C and D, If Ingraham has a soul she stole it from someone else, and Hannity's moral compass only points in one direction.

[kenberg]

helene_t, on 2021-February-17, 15:46, said:

Yeah, Ken is right, they polled some random people, first manipulated them by telling them that X republican senators supported it, and then asked the same random people whether they would support the stimulus. The objective was apparently to investigate to what extent people let their stand on issues influence by partisanship.

Right. And while I believe the answer is that partisanship plays a big role, I am finding the numbers very weird. There seems to be broad agreement that something is off, and so I will drop it.

[Chas_P]

pilowsky, on 2021-February-17, 15:49, said:

Hannity's moral compass only points in one direction.

LMAO. And Rachel Maddow is open-minded? Gimme a break.

[pilowsky]

Chas_P, on 2021-February-17, 20:23, said:

LMAO. And Rachel Maddow is open-minded? Gimme a break.

Just to be clear then, The reason that you are laughing your A off is not that Hannity is a schmuck, but because you think that someone else is biased?

The most amazing part of that belief is that it comes from someone who can play a mind game reasonably well (or is that an assumption?).

[Zelandakh]

pilowsky, on 2021-February-18, 01:37, said:

Just to be clear then, The reason that you are laughing your A off is not that Hannity is a schmuck, but because you think that someone else is biased?

The most amazing part of that belief is that it comes from someone who can play a mind game reasonably well (or is that an assumption?).

Pilo, just to be clear, Chas is BBF's very own racist-in-chief, with an amazing (unfortunately not unique) ability to ignore anything that might be the least critical of any of the various other racists and crazies that litter right-wing media. It is literally not worth engaging with him on any of this stuff, any more than any other internet troll. You are welcome to give it your best shot though!

[pilowsky]

Zelandakh, on 2021-February-18, 17:08, said:

Pilo, just to be clear, Chas is BBF's very own racist-in-chief, with an amazing (unfortunately not unique) ability to ignore anything that might be the least critical of any of the various other racists and crazies that litter right-wing media. It is literally not worth engaging with him on any of this stuff, any more than any other internet troll. You are welcome to give it your best shot though!

Shelo, obviously .

But, as AL Rowse (AL. ROWSE, bachelor, eccentric, misanthropist, poet and, whatever his detractors may say, foremost Elizabethan scholar of his age) is alleged to have remarked:

"You have to tell people they are third-rate - how else are they to know?"

The irony of Trump and his supporters calling everyone who is smarter than them "third-rate" is not lost on me.

[Chas_P]

Zelandakh, on 2021-February-18, 17:08, said:

Pilo, just to be clear, Chas is BBF's very own racist-in-chief,

I really pity you Zelwhateveryournameis. You obviously are a certified half-wit. I wish you a speedy recovery. May the Schwartz be with you.

Your friend,
Charles

[pilowsky]

Chas_P, on 2021-February-18, 18:52, said:

I really pity you Zelwhateveryournameis. You obviously are a certified half-wit. I wish you a speedy recovery. May the Schwartz be with you.

Your friend,
Charles

Sounds useful, where do I get wit certificates?

[Chas_P]

pilowsky, on 2021-February-18, 19:01, said:

Sounds useful, where do I get wit certificates?

Wherever you get certificates to call those who don't share your worldview a "racist-in-chief". I have no idea. Ask Zelwhateverhisnameis.

[y66]

Ted Cruz Is No Hypocrite. He’s Worse.

Quote

The senator’s error is not that he was deliberately shirking his duty, but that he couldn’t think of any way he could help.

[pilowsky]

Chas_P, on 2021-February-18, 19:31, said:

Wherever you get certificates to call those who don't share your worldview a "racist-in-chief". I have no idea. Ask Zelwhateverhisnameis.

About two years ago, I stopped watching television. The main reason was a TV show called 'Gogglebox'.
It seemed that the premise of this show was that I was supposed to enjoy watching stupid people making stupid comments about "Stars" dancing or cooking or something else.

I have in the past stopped smoking. Giving up television was much easier. I didn't have to chew on the antenna for a week while my mouth tasted like an ashtray.

So, apart from learning to play Bridge and some other stuff, I occasionally sampled information from various sources.
These sources included Maddow, Hannity, Carlson (my favourite because he always looks so confused) and others from across the spectrum.

Growing up, living in, and being schooled in many countries, one thing that interested me about these commentators was their 'voice'.

Most of the time, these people are not functioning as 'Journalists' in any real sense. They don't synthesise information and 'report' it in any useful way.
Instead, they cherry-pick and present commentary in a way that results in maximum ratings (upvotes/cites/likes/ - even masterpoints - etc. all the same thing).

Despite this, it is valuable to listen to all these perspectives because otherwise, I cannot understand how some people justify their bizarre idiosyncratic thinking.

In the end, at its core, everyone wants food, shelter and the approval of others.

Some people have a world view that means that they should have more food, shelter and approval than others. In fact, they want so much of it that their 'world-view' may damage others.

I draw the line here. Trump supporters believe that they are 'entitled' to whatever they can get and that everyone that cannot compete with them should just 'suck-it-up' or die.
This Lord of the flies, Battle Royale, Hunger Games political philosophy is abhorrent to me because it means that proponents of it are 'a danger to others'.

As Prizzi said in Prizzi's Honour': "The Italian's love money more than their children, and they are very fond of their children". Trumpism is cut from this same cloth.

So if you believe any of the following - just a few examples:

• I should be entitled to carry a gun.
• Jews are 'on average' smart
• On average, black people are not as smart as other people.
• All South African Jewish women are arrogant.

Then no, I don't think your world view is acceptable.
I haven't gone through the record to determine exactly what your views on these and other matters are, and I'm not taking Sheldon's (https://twitter.com/zelandakh) word for it - even if he is a 'regular dude'.

What I can say is that anyone who doesn't laugh and cry when Kayleigh McEnany (I promise I will never lie to you) speaks is surely in need of some re-education - albeit not in a camp.

You mention Rachel Maddow specifically. I do agree that she tailors her commentary specifically for an audience to maximise ratings. I do not regard her as a news source by any stretch.
My favourite Maddow-ism was when Putin attacked the Crimea and built a Bridge connecting two landmasses.

With the aid of photos, large arrows and diagrams, Maddow pointed to the Bridge and expostulated: "And then they built a weird bridge".
Give me a break. Some of my bidding and play could happily be characterised as 'weird', but a Bridge?

During the Trump interregnum, even Seth Meyers became serious. That's how bad things were.

So no, a world-view that denies climate change, believes that a group of people are more or less capable on account of their skin colour and cleaves to irrational explanations for self-enrichment is not OK by me, either.

[kenberg]

pilowsky, on 2021-February-18, 18:08, said:

Shelo, obviously .

But, as AL Rowse (AL. ROWSE, bachelor, eccentric, misanthropist, poet and, whatever his detractors may say, foremost Elizabethan scholar of his age) is alleged to have remarked:

"You have to tell people they are third-rate - how else are they to know?"

The irony of Trump and his supporters calling everyone who is smarter than them "third-rate" is not lost on me.

I had not heard of Rowse so I read the stuff on the link and then went to the Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia...iki/A._L._Rowse


I guess I won't push the envelope on Forum censorship by quoting the Wik's assessment of his Personal Attitudes.


I gather he was a smart guy. Sometimes I like smart guys, sometimes not. Intelligence is a multi-dimensional trait.

[pilowsky]

kenberg, on 2021-February-18, 21:43, said:

Intelligence is a multi-dimensional trait.

That's exactly what my wife says.