Total posts: 28,020
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
how would you explain it if in two years Trump has done nothing to secure elections?
It's not his job. The only way to get people to get upset at cheating is to cheat more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
definitely too big to rig
Created:
-->
@cristo71
with a golf swing sway.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
I heard Trump got his "dance moves" from Hitler.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Also, banana can never be voted due to the systemic patriarchy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Yeah, Christians probably don't care about low-t gossip either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I don't think Trump really cares about old-lady low-t gossip.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
They are not known for their accurate representation and grasp of technical matters.
Among many other things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
I doubt it. FLRW has been posting nudies of Melania on this site for years and Trump did not give a fuck.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
Remember when 2016 Trump started a bunch of wars like Hitler did?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Melania also perfected democracy.
Hail Hydra.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Sing for a perfected democracy! Ty Trump for making democracy PERFECT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Amen. Putin is a moron too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I don't care. As long as democracy was perfected under Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
That's because only Trump could save democracy and perfect it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Nov 5, 2024 — Historians have named Kamala Harris as the loser to Donald Trump, the worst president in U.S. history, placing her worse than 45th out of all the former American presidents.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
So Kamala was worse than the worst president of all time. GG Demz.
Created:
Posted in:
From my understanding, repeatability/similarity of results is what establishes a consensus among scientists. What do you believe “consensus” to be?
I believe there’s a critical distinction between the consensus of results and the consensus of people in scientific discussions. Vivek always talks about "data driven truths." When we talk about the consensus of results, we mean to say multiple independent studies, often using different methodologies, consistently produce similar findings. This repeatability reinforces the reliability and validity of the results, as it demonstrates that the observed phenomenon isn't dependent on any single study's specific conditions or potential biases. In which case, one study is independent of "consensus" of other studies.
On the other hand, the consensus of people reflects the agreement among scientists as individuals, which are often influenced by factors such as the culture of institutions, government funding priorities, or prevailing biases. True, a broad agreement among scientists can possibly indicate confidence in a particular body of evidence, but it doesn't inherently validate the science unless it’s grounded in reproducible results and hard data. The ultimate arbiter should always be data and empirical evidence, not merely the number of people agreeing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Christendom...
More specifically, Protestantism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Not exactly the "consensus of science" but the repeatability of the results. It's not a matter of agreeing by "consensus." Either the results are repeatable or they are not. In this case, the results I looked at, while not exactly identical (the scientists didn't mirror each other), were similar enough to see that a causality was observable.
what did the science say about the effects of lockdowns on the development and education of children?
We only found out many years later when comparing countries with different policies to see there was actually a negative mortality effect with lockdowns as it caused physical stress which compromised natural immunity. While it did slow the spread, after 5 years about 99% were eventually exposed to some variant of Covid. As far as education went, all testing scores went down as educators were not able to communicate through virtual cameras and masks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I actually read the results of about 5 studies on comorbidities, since MSM wouldn't tell us who was really at-risk (fat shaming is a no-no)
Since they all came to the same conclusions, that seemed like very strong evidence. I didn't have to wait for an "expert" to break the code of silence about the taboo of "fat-shaming"
If the evidence is important enough, I will take my time to read the evidence. (it really didn't take all that long, an hour tops)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Like I said in another thread. Use your high school lab knowledge to read the results of experiments (evidence) instead of asking someone else to read the results for you. If the results of an experiment can't be read or repeated by anyone else but one man on the planet, then it isn't science (by definition).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Uh yeah. So if that's your answer, that "researching" means "doing the experiment yourself"
Wanna take a second guess since you are all into the "guessing game" on this site?
it's who you should trust
And you have said before that you trust the MSM. They said the people love Kamala. They said crime, immigration, and the economy is not something the people really care about. They said Biden was super cogent and just wanted to let Kamala get her turn when he dropped out. They said Trump was worse than Hitler.
None of that was true, and Biden's smiling face today tells you everything you need to know about the deep state subverting democracy by pulling the donors out from under Biden. The simple fact is: you lack the ability to decide who to trust. That's actually worse than ignorance. That's a cognitive disorder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Have you seen the crypto prices lately? It's expensive to buy right now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Trump said Puerto Rico is an island surrounded by water.Who cares?
He also didn't send 200 billion to assist PR.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
if the odds of dying from the disease was way higher, and spreading it far more likely, I wouldn't even say it should be voluntary. I'd have argued to either take the shot or forfeit your citizenship, and get deported.
The authoritarian take: "take the shot or forfeit their citizenship and be deported" is extreme and fundamentally flawed, especially given the facts about vaccine efficacy. While COVID-19 vaccines clinically reduced the risk of severe illness, hospitalization, and death, they did not prevent the vast majority of people, around 99% over the past 5 years, from being exposed to the virus or its variants. In fact, studies have shown that vaccinated individuals could still easily contract and spread COVID-19, particularly as new variants emerged. These facts undermine the premise that mandating the vaccine would or could measurably stop the spread or eliminate risk to others.
Public health measures have to balance collective safety with individual rights. Threatening to strip someone of their citizenship and deport them for declining a vaccine crosses ethical and legal boundaries, violating principles of bodily autonomy and democratic freedom. Moreover, coercion breeds distrust, alienates populations, and weakens public health efforts. A more effective approach focuses on education and transparency to encourage voluntary participation, rather than enforcing punitive and authoritarian measures that undermine trust in both the government and public health institutions.
Ultimately, your argument fails to admit the limitations of the vaccine in preventing exposure and instead promotes an authoritarian overreach that disregards individual rights and the nuances of public health science. To what end?
A.I.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
the odds of dying after the shot, were next to zero statistically.
We actually know now that was an unfounded claim . Especially for high risk groups like elderly and obese who trusted the experts when they implied they had a near 100 percent of surviving the Covid if they took the vax.
While the COVID-19 vaccine significantly reduced the risk of severe illness and death, especially in high-risk groups, it did not eliminate it. People in high-risk categories—such as the elderly, immunocompromised individuals, and those with underlying health conditions—could and did still succumb to COVID-19 even after being vaccinated. Studies consistently show that while vaccines mitigated risks, they are not perfect, and deaths among vaccinated high-risk populations have been well documented.
This idea that the odds of dying were "next to zero" oversimplifies the data. For high-risk groups, the vaccine reduced the likelihood of severe outcomes somewhat, but did not remove the risk entirely. Additionally, the presence of breakthrough infections and evolving variants further demonstrated that the vaccine, while a critical tool, was not an absolute shield against mortality. Science demands nuance, and ignoring the remaining risk misrepresents the reality faced by vulnerable populations.
A.I.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Your focus on 'credible sources' and fact-checks misses the main point: even if current data shows low risks, long-term safety cannot be confirmed without the time to study those effects. This isn't about being 'anti-vax' or 'anti-experts'; it's about standing against coercion and ensuring public health measures are implemented transparently and responsibly. Resorting to insults like calling others 'incompetent' doesn't strengthen your argument.... It just distracts from the valid concerns people have about trust in government-appointed "experts," transparency, accountability, and the freedom to make informed choices about their own health decisions.
I also worry about the dangerous precedent this sets. When a government is allowed to mandate the use of any medical treatment—particularly one that is newly developed and lacks long-term testing—it opens the door to much worse possibilities in the future. Today, it might be a vaccine with broad public support; tomorrow, it could be a more invasive or experimental treatment with far-reaching consequences. History shows that unchecked government power often expands, and once we allow a mandate like this, it becomes harder to draw the line when future policies are introduced. Imagine mandatory brain chips installed by a company with lawsuit immunity. Supporting sweeping mandates without the necessary critical scrutiny risks normalizing authoritarian measures like that, which absolutely will have dire implications for personal freedom and public trust and safety.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Where on earth did you get evidence that the covid Vax was bad
I never said it was bad. I always said it was untested. And you shouldn't support an authoritarian government that forces you to take an untested drug from a company that has lawsuit immunity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
One problem is that people confuse "listen to the science" with "listen to the scienTISTS"
They are completely different concepts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
consensus scientists?
What's a consensus scientist? Is that like a celebrity scientist?
When you use the term "consensus scientist" as an argument, you should refocus the discussion on what really matters: evidence. Science is not based on the number of people who agree on a result but on reproducible data that withstands scrutiny from anyone. While scientific consensus can indicate the prevailing interpretation of evidence, it’s not the arbiter of truth, or a substitute for reading the results. Many of history’s greatest scientific advancements, from Galileo’s heliocentrism to Einstein’s relativity, came from non-consensus scientists challenging the status quo. Furthermore, consensus science has been wrong many times before—such as when ulcers were thought to be caused by stress rather than bacteria—proving that skepticism and testing are essential to scientific progress. The term "consensus scientist" is often used rhetorically to imply groupthink or to shut down debate, with terms like "settled science," but true science thrives on open questioning. History has shown that scientific claims must be backed by clear, repeatable evidence, not appeals to authority or popularity. In the end, it’s the results and their reproducibility that define science, not labels or consensus.
A.I.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
So you know it doesn't take an expert to follow steps and read a chart and draw your own conclusions.
They had the same studies charts and conclusions during Covid where a person with high school lab experience could read multiple charts and repeatable results about who was dying from Covid and conclude on their own that Covid was mostly a threat to the elderly and the obese and those with co-morbidities. They didn't have to wait for an "expert" to come out on MSNBC and tell you that. Or trust an "expert" that denied those results existed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
"You can't question smart people that know a lot more about a subject than you do."
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
An equal world would have equal measures of apathy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It's not the left that's been screaming from the mountaintops about immigration for the past 8 years.
The Mayor of New York disagrees.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
My stance is, and has always been, that the alternative to blindly trusting authority figures is for you to do your own research and study the basics of the science, which requires NO expertise, before blindly trusting anyone.
Science and repeatable outcomes are rooted in universal principles that require no specialized expertise to grasp, as they rely on observable, measurable, and reproducible phenomena. A basic high school understanding of the scientific method—forming hypotheses, conducting experiments, collecting data, and drawing conclusions—is sufficient to recognize whether an experiment is repeatable or not. Repeatability simply means that if the same steps are followed under the same conditions, the results should be consistent. This doesn’t require "an expert," only clarity in the experimental procedure and transparency in the results. Anyone with basic scientific literacy can assess whether an experiment is well-documented without bias and whether its outcomes can be tested again by others without specialized knowledge. If the results of a study can only be understood or verified by an expert, then the study's credibility becomes highly suspect, as real science relies on universal accessibility and verification.
Like the republican party, you r good at criticizing
You really need to look past the false dichotomy of artificially manufactured political parties if you want to understand the real world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
One of the reasons why Kamala lost is because the left was shamed into thinking it had no right to question the hundreds of "experts" that predicted a Kamala victory. Also that they were not allowed to question how Harris was selected by "experts." Also, the left was not allowed to question the hundreds of "expert" economists that got inflation wrong.
Keep doing the same thing over and over. It means change will be near impossible.
we listen to our doctors and to consensus scientists.
First off, consensus isn't science, it's a vibe.
Secondly, because EVERY practicing "expert" doctor carries malpractice insurance, it only hurts yourself if you trust your "expert" doctor enough to never look for a second opinion.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
That way you are making the world more equal. That should be the goal.
Evolution disagrees. If everything was equal in any species, they would have no way to adapt to a naturally unequal, changing world. A universe that was equal would have no natural mechanisms to change for the better.
I seriously doubt the goal of humanity is to exist in "equal" virtual reality pods, shut off from the natural world. We would lose the instinct for self-preservation within a few generations if that was the case, since existence would be artificially engineered instead of naturally challenged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
"You can't question smart people (like MSNBC) that know a lot more about a subject than you do."
Created:
Posted in:
"You can't question smart people that know a lot more about a subject than you do."
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Recent research by Darren Sherkat, a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University
Not recent enough if he didn't address the absolute failure of Harris to address the top 2 concerns of voters...inflation and immigration. A 2021 study doesn't reflect at all what really happened November 2024.
That's how you lose big.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
You dare question an expert?
AI owns you.
Created: