All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[pErvinalia]

Again, I'm not doing your arguing for you. If you want to make a case for something, do it properly yourself.

[Cunt]

Science-denial around gender is exclusively lefties.

There is almost nothing more patently ridiculous, except maybe 6-day creationists.

[pErvinalia]

I see you are still not making a proper argument. Quelle surprise

So, what's the science of gender? What is the science denial that the lefties are involved in?

[JimC]

Some on the severely politically correct branch of the left deny that any potential differences between males and females, physical or mental are down to biology.

This is simply the other end of the pendulum swing from the view that women are poor weak creatures, only fit for child-bearing and housework. Both are quite silly...

[Tero]

Your taxes will be simple! Less bureaucracy! So much winning!

[pErvinalia]

Some on the severely politically correct branch of the left deny that any potential differences between males and females, physical or mental are down to biology.

Where are all these people? I've only ever seen one person who maintains this position.

[Tero]

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/truste ... -tax-plan/

[Tero]

I think he’s just making a thing about cis and trans.

Righties: dicks and vaginas define gender.

[Hermit]

Mister Whatabout strikes again.

Oh, fuck off - when the discussion is about whether this is peculiar to the Republican party, then pointing out other examples -- from the Communist Party, Socialist Party, Libertarian Party or Democratic Party is fair.

AKA whataboutism.

Whattaboutism is when one suggests that an argument is valid or conduct is good because someone else does the same or similar thing.

It really isn't.

Whataboutism: The technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which in the United States is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.

Whataboutism gives a clue to its meaning in its name. It is not merely the changing of a subject ("What about the economy?") to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.

The tactic behind whataboutism has been around for a long time. Rhetoricians generally consider it to be a form of tu quoque, which means "you too" in Latin and involves charging your accuser with whatever it is you've just been accused of rather than refuting the truth of the accusation made against you. Tu quoque is considered to be a logical fallacy, because whether or not the original accuser is likewise guilty of an offense has no bearing on the truth value of the original accusation.

Republicans are a great deal more likely to deny science than Democrats. It would be interesting, for example, to compare the percentage of global warming denialists among Republicans with the percentage of global warming denialists among Democrats, then do the same with people in each group who deny evolution.

Nonsense. That's just not true.

You just limit your "science" to global warming and evolution. I am positive more Republicans deny global warming and evolution than Democrats. Democrats are idiots when it comes to other issues. They are idiots when it comes to global warming and evolution, too, by and large -- they just happen to have picked the right team on those occasions. Being "pro" evolution or global warming is not an indication that one knows anything about it. It's a broken clock being correct twice a day.

Let's recap the argument, shall we? You quite correctly pointed out that Democrats deny science too. I replied, saying that nobody claimed the opposite, but that on a percentage basis they are significantly less likely to deny science than Republicans. I gave you concrete data drawn from surveys concerning - evolution, global warming and vaccination - and in each case they prove that Republicans are significantly more likely to deny science than democrats.

You countered with empty rhetoric. Democrats "are idiots when it comes to global warming and evolution, too, by and large -- they just happen to have picked the right team on those occasions." Can you imagine your fictitious role model, Horace Rumpole, coming out with such shit? John Mortimer would have him laugh you out of court.

[Cunt]

Some on the severely politically correct branch of the left deny that any potential differences between males and females, physical or mental are down to biology.

This is simply the other end of the pendulum swing from the view that women are poor weak creatures, only fit for child-bearing and housework. Both are quite silly...

What is a TERF? (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist)

What is a man? What is a woman?

These are all questions that will make lefties uncomfortable to talk about in public, with intellectuals such as Dr. Soh, or others who have a grounding in biology.

[pErvinalia]

Some on the severely politically correct branch of the left deny that any potential differences between males and females, physical or mental are down to biology.

This is simply the other end of the pendulum swing from the view that women are poor weak creatures, only fit for child-bearing and housework. Both are quite silly...

What is a TERF? (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist)

What is a man? What is a woman?

These are all questions that will make lefties uncomfortable to talk about in public, with intellectuals such as Dr. Soh, or others who have a grounding in biology.

I don't see any reference to science in this post. Nor to any lefties that have said anything anti-science. Not that I'm even slightly surprised that you yet again haven't backed up your empty opinions with anything.

[Cunt]

Some on the severely politically correct branch of the left deny that any potential differences between males and females, physical or mental are down to biology.

This is simply the other end of the pendulum swing from the view that women are poor weak creatures, only fit for child-bearing and housework. Both are quite silly...

What is a TERF? (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist)

What is a man? What is a woman?

These are all questions that will make lefties uncomfortable to talk about in public, with intellectuals such as Dr. Soh, or others who have a grounding in biology.

I don't see any reference to science in this post. Nor to any lefties that have said anything anti-science. Not that I'm even slightly surprised that you yet again haven't backed up your empty opinions with anything.

Dr. Soh said that she left a research position. Go find out why if you are interested. I'm pretty convinced by all the trans-kids around, that the left is anti-science.

Some of them actually think they are helping their kids, with this new form of 'pray the gay away'. Myself, I'm just as disgusted with anti-gay propaganda as I have ever been. Even if it has this new, repugnant form.

[pErvinalia]

Some on the severely politically correct branch of the left deny that any potential differences between males and females, physical or mental are down to biology.

This is simply the other end of the pendulum swing from the view that women are poor weak creatures, only fit for child-bearing and housework. Both are quite silly...

What is a TERF? (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist)

What is a man? What is a woman?

These are all questions that will make lefties uncomfortable to talk about in public, with intellectuals such as Dr. Soh, or others who have a grounding in biology.

I don't see any reference to science in this post. Nor to any lefties that have said anything anti-science. Not that I'm even slightly surprised that you yet again haven't backed up your empty opinions with anything.

Dr. Soh said that she left a research position. Go find out why if you are interested.

Yet again, make your own argument. If you won't even take the effort to make your own arguments, why would you think we would do it for you?

I'm pretty convinced by all the trans-kids around, that the left is anti-science.

Trans-kids = left being anti-science? That's retarded even by your standards.

Some of them actually think they are helping their kids, with this new form of 'pray the gay away'. Myself, I'm just as disgusted with anti-gay propaganda as I have ever been. Even if it has this new, repugnant form.

You are making even less sense than usual. What does this have to do with your refusal to cite science and provide evidence for your claims?

[Tero]

Extreme right wingers, like Cunt, always define dicks are males and vaginas are females. They’ve been trolling this for years now. One troll gave me the info that ”60% of Swedish boys want to be girls.”

[Seabass]

An insane, brain-damaged, toddler manbaby has control of the most powerful military the world has ever known. It's an interesting time to be alive...

'Willful Ignorance.' Inside President Trump's Troubled Intelligence Briefings
http://time.com/5518947/donald-trump-in ... -security/

What is most troubling, say these officials and others in government and on Capitol Hill who have been briefed on the episodes, are Trump’s angry reactions when he is given information that contradicts positions he has taken or beliefs he holds. Two intelligence officers even reported that they have been warned to avoid giving the President intelligence assessments that contradict stances he has taken in public.

...for example, the subject turned to the British Indian Ocean Territory of Diego Garcia. The island is home to an important airbase and a U.S. Naval Support Facility that are central to America’s ability to project power in the region, including in the war in Afghanistan.

The President, officials familiar with the briefing said, asked two questions: Are the people nice, and are the beaches good? “Some of us wondered if he was thinking about our alliance with the Brits and the security issues in an important area where the Chinese have been increasingly active, or whether he was thinking like a real estate developer,” one of the officials said wryly.

In another briefing on South Asia, Trump’s advisors brought a map of the region from Afghanistan to Bangladesh, according to intelligence officers with knowledge of the meeting and congressional officials who were briefed on it. Trump, they said, pointed at the map and said he knew that Nepal was part of India, only to be told that it is an independent nation. When said he was familiar with Bhutan and knew it, too, was part of India, his briefers told him that Bhutan was an independent kingdom.

For now, the briefers are heartened by the intelligence community leaders who risked Trump’s ire by contradicting him in public testimony this week.

The danger, one former intelligence official said, is that those leaders and other intelligence briefers may eventually stop taking such risks in laying out the facts for the President.

full article: http://time.com/5518947/donald-trump-in ... -security/