Trump supporters, how do you square this?

[kicker22]

You say all of this now. But 4 years from now whoever the republican nominee is will be labeled "worse than Trump". By the time the election rolls around you will be convinced of that.

I don't believe that for a minute. Not saying you're wrong, but i completely disagree. To many of us, and I use "us" meaning not necessarily democrats but rather those that didn't vote republican, some of us would have voted republican around if it were anyone other then Trump running. For those of us that despise Trump, myself included, I have absolutely no issue saying that I don't think there could be a nominee more despised then Trump. I can speak only for myself, but I despised who the way he handled himself as a President for 4 years and that disapproval only grew the 4 years Biden was in power and Trump was doing his things on the sidelines.

I may disagree with a republican and where they stand on issues, but Trump is one of the few people that I can honestly say I despised prior to him getting into office. As I said I won't speak for others, but I would have absolutely no problems voting for a republican regardless of what the media paints them as. To be honest I disagree, because in Trump's case its not only about politics, but more the fact that I see him as a disgusting human being and someone in no way shape or form as a leader of anyone. So when you the next guy may be "labeled worse then Trump" they may come across that way, but I'd be shocked if they're any where close.

 

[Westernhawk]

One thing I teach to my students all the time is: evidence does NOT equal truth.

If you want something to be true (anything), you can find some evidence to support it. But evidence exists at many different levels of quality. Some is very low quality (anecdote, expert opinion).

Just above that is basic science stuff (animal models, cell models, etc.)...that makes up most of biomedical research, and it is absolutely critical to being able to develop future interventions to translate to humans. But, the vast majority of what looks promising at a basic science level craps out when it is applied to humans. Like, way more than 90% of what we think we know from basic science doesn't actually translate in the way we expect to the human.

A step higher, we have epidemiology (observational research). We are observing what free-living humans are doing (we are not controlling anything), and we are comparing this to the outcomes we are observing. This is how we know exercise helps us live longer, obesity shortens our lifespan, etc.

Highest level of experimental evidence is the randomized controlled trial (RCT). You predict what happens with an intervention, you apply the intervention, you see if your prediction holds true. Not all questions can be approached with an RCT, of course.

But what really matters it the BODY OF EVIDENCE. That is why the systematic review is considered the strongest evidence...it is a collection of all evidence that exists on a topic, systematically gathered, and synthesized to come to the most likely conclusion.

RFK, Jr. might be able to cherry-pick a piece of evidence here and there, but his argument is strongly refuted by the body of evidence regarding vaccine efficacy and safety. We should be open to the idea that for certain populations, vaccine risks (which absolutely do exist) might potentially outweigh benefits; and that is probably a question and a topic that should be studied more. But I have heard enough outrageous statements come out of his mouth that fly in the face of existing evidence to consider him a charlatan, and to not really want to waste any more of my life trying to take his schtick seriously.

I am also not interested in, "But look at this one video where he says something that is reasonable!" He talks out of both sides of his mouth, sounding reasonable when in a setting where it is expected, and going full-blown crazy in other settings. He is a serial liar, and no one should take him seriously unless they are hungry for the snake oil he is selling.

If someone comes to me and talks about a meta analysis on a given topic, I listen.

 

[Hay Man]

I don't believe that for a minute. Not saying you're wrong, but i completely disagree. To many of us, and I use "us" meaning not necessarily democrats but rather those that didn't vote republican, some of us would have voted republican around if it were anyone other then Trump running. For those of us that despise Trump, myself included, I have absolutely no issue saying that I don't think there could be a nominee more despised then Trump. I can speak only for myself, but I despised who the way he handled himself as a President for 4 years and that disapproval only grew the 4 years Biden was in power and Trump was doing his things on the sidelines.

I may disagree with a republican and where they stand on issues, but Trump is one of the few people that I can honestly say I despised prior to him getting into office. As I said I won't speak for others, but I would have absolutely no problems voting for a republican regardless of what the media paints them as. To be honest I disagree, because in Trump's case its not only about politics, but more the fact that I see him as a disgusting human being and someone in no way shape or form as a leader of anyone. So when you the next guy may be "labeled worse then Trump" they may come across that way, but I'd be shocked if they're any where close.

But it's the media telling you to hate him, right??? Not his words and actions.

I'm right there with you on this one.

 

[PCHawk]

@PCHawk you still didn't address bolded.

I did address this. Not sure if you wrote this before or after a did tho. I'm way behind in this thread today. Trying to respond as I read them.

 

[PCHawk]

Bolded is false. Mom's telling RFK something is anecdote, not fact. Fact and anecdote cannot go together. Read the definitions of those words. They are mutually exclusive.

I said it was a fact that the moms came to them with the info. That part is fact. The evidence from that info is anecdotal. Maybe you need to read slower? I'm not sure how you struggle that bad. I guess maybe it's me.

 

[CP87]

Okay, something from my work world, that I know some of you will find really wild.

Here's some of the words that, if used in your research study, will get your federal funding yanked:

1. Trauma (what if that's the thing you're studying?)
2. Women (!)
3. Barrier (people do research on the blood brain barrier, for example), but that word is now on "the list
4. Victim

If you think this is okay, you are insane.

Especially crazy because women have been vastly understudied within the biomedical research community, though scientists have been trying to slowly close the gap over the past few decades. Time to reverse that trend, I guess.

 

[PCHawk]

Not being interested in, and not reading about history and Middle East geopolitics is totally fine. I'm not interested in collecting Beanie Babies so I don't learn about the topic or spend time on it.

But I also don't go on internet forums and argue about the topic and why this or that should happen because I know absolutely nothing about it.

Whats funny is you got completely confused at my original "prime" land comment and turned it into something completely different and argued on that with a bunch of stuff I already knew but was irrelevant to what I originally said. Then you take little jabs like "if you knew about the history" when the history didn't even have anything to do with what we were talking about.

 

[kicker22]

Thats all completely fair. But I do think you are underestimating what constant negative media coverage does. If you could rate your opinion of him on a 1-10 scale, clearly the media isn't turning a 9 into a 1. But it can easily turn a 0 into a 7, or a 6 to a 4, or a 3 to a 1. I'm saying that's what's happening with Trump. Hell it worked on me. I used to say "Trump is a piece of shit but I like his policies". It took years of noticing media lies to come around to "Trump is kinda a douche but I like his policies".

I understand the constant negative media coverage and as we know he could give two shits what people think about him. The problem is no matter kind of coverage he's getting he's 100% responsible for how conducts himself. I've got 3 kids under the age of 15 and my number one goal is to raise them from children into respectable and successful adults. So you're absolutely right that constant "negative media coverage" does have an impact, but so IMO morals, decency and simply a code of morals or ethics do to.
The President is the most powerful guy in the world and whether we agree or disagree with him he should be looked up to and given respect. That said, I can't and simply will not respect someone that lacks compassion, sympathy, and simply behaves like a spoiled child. That's not anything I want my kids to be. Sure some of that is brought on by the media, but look past that and look at how he acts and what he says when it isn't being flipped around. The guy shows zero respect for any political opponent, has absolutely no loyalty to anyone who has a different opinion, no issues attacking people based on race, ethnicity, gender, etc, is the definition of a hypocrite, and a criminal on top of it (whether we want to hold him accountable for such crimes as president or not)... it's disgusting. So while you were able to come around and say "he's kind of a douche but I like his policies" I see a disgusting excuse of a human who has no business being the face of our country, because there is nothing about him that I'd want my kids seeing in a person of power.

The difference between him and others whether right or wrong is they all may be corrupt, but some hide who they are in public while he puts it on display like its something to be proud of.

 

[CP87]

I know I have a lot of students who voted for Trump, especially young males.

They are young enough that most will live to the point where history has judged this era. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think history will judge Trump and his administration kindly. I think a lot about how these students are going to look back at their choice 50 years down the road.

I think the hardest thing for these individuals to reconcile about Trump will not be specific policies or even corruption, but the overall cruelty and moral rot.

Maybe I'm wrong...not sure if I will live long enough for historians to take a truly unbiased look at this era, so I guess maybe I never find out.

 

[kicker22]

I'm also completely indifferent on their batte and wish we would stay out of it completely. Best case scenario is the US finds them a home that works better than this one did. Clearly Gaza didn't work, regardless of who was responsible. If they rebuild there, something bad will happen down the road.

One thing about Trump is he wants something in return for helping other countries. I agree with him there. When we were helping a country in the middle east (we unfortunately weren't) we damn well should have taken some oil to pay for it. Why should it come out of our pocket? Now Trump is talking about Ukraine giving us their precious minerals as a repayment. Why shouldn't they? Every other US president let's us take it in the ass repeatedly. They don't even ask for lube. At least Trump tries to get something in return to help our country. Whether you agree with it or not, I think that's all he's doing here. He's says "we are going to help find you a more suitable home, and in return we are getting something out of it". That's the way it should be. Hopefully in the end everyone is satisfied, and we aren't another trillion in debt.

I don't disagree with this, but there's a very fine line between "helping" and exploiting a country in need of assistance with the intent on benefitting from tragedy.

 

[PCHawk]

I never said anything about hating Joe Rogan. Once again, your assumption. I've listened to Joe Rogan and some of it is great. I loved Fear Factor when he was on it. He's awesome on UFC fights.

Trump and Kennedy are a different subject all together. I do realize that Kennedy does bring facts to the table, but he's also thrown some seriously terrible things out there too. His anti-vax stance has gotten people killed - Samoa - and the list goes on with crazy shit.

I have no problem with being presented with facts from people on both sides, but a lot of times after the facts are presented, those people start spewing things that aren't facts and tying them all together. Democrats are as much to blame as Republicans. But I have the right to dislike people who I don't think are good people and acting in good faith with what I deem to be morally and ethically correct.

Maybe you meant to type Trump instead of Rogan? The reason I responded about Rogan is because you specifically said Rogan. If you mistyped, then disregard that whole rant.

 

[kicker22]

I would love to hear the other side cult thing. Like all the Biden and Harris flags flying and the stupid matching outfits and hats and how we all believe Biden and Harris will fix everything and we don’t dare cross the leader or we laugh at how crazy shit they spew and that we love it when they say mean things about everyone and that putting Soros in charge of everything and he also gets to say if the contracts he gets from the government are wasteful and corrupt.

I'm not going to come out and say its a cult, but from a political standpoint its the unhealthiest following I've ever seen. Trump stores, shoes, bibles, mugshot shirts, attempted assassination shirts and the list goes on and on. I've honestly seen nothing like it. IMO it's gross and goes way beyond passionate and falls right into the creepy and disturbing category. I've never seen anything like it and hope I don't.

 

[PCHawk]

My only point there is that Elon Musk hasn't help anyone but himself.

Is he going to cut all of the billions he gets in contracts from the government for his businesses or is that not waste or over spending? I'm all for cutting spending on useless projects, like going to Mars...

My guess is he wouldn't cut anything that hurt himself, which is obviously bullshit. But in the end we would have cut the wasteful spending and corruption on everything else at least. Maybe he will surprise us at the end and have a different team look into everything that goes to him.

I'm not 100% sure on thos but I have heard that the government under Biden was already finding ways to cut funding to anything Musk related so I'm not entirely sure what he gets anymore.

As far as going to Mars. If we never make an effort to expand into space, there is 100% chance humans don't survive forever. Sooner or later an asteroid will get us again. If not, the sun eventually burns out. Reaching out into space might be too long term for you to care about (and I get if it is). But if every human thought that short sighted, it would insure our fate.

 

[Fryowa]

Whats funny is you got completely confused at my original "prime" land comment and turned it into something completely different and argued on that with a bunch of stuff I already knew but was irrelevant to what I originally said. Then you take little jabs like "if you knew about the history" when the history didn't even have anything to do with what we were talking about.

You are way too much work.

 

[PCHawk]

Just proving a point

I know you were. And it was a valid point. But it's also the same exact point everyone else is pointing out when they use "whataboutism". That's why it's such a stupid word. It's just a condescending way to try to get away with being a hypocrite.

 

[PCHawk]

You are way too much work.

Try being me! I'm hard at work today so I can barely keep up with your flip flopping around and misinterpreting obvious points.

 

[PCHawk]

One thing I teach to my students all the time is: evidence does NOT equal truth.

If you want something to be true (anything), you can find some evidence to support it. But evidence exists at many different levels of quality. Some is very low quality (anecdote, expert opinion).

Just above that is basic science stuff (animal models, cell models, etc.)...that makes up most of biomedical research, and it is absolutely critical to being able to develop future interventions to translate to humans. But, the vast majority of what looks promising at a basic science level craps out when it is applied to humans. Like, way more than 90% of what we think we know from basic science doesn't actually translate in the way we expect to the human.

A step higher, we have epidemiology (observational research). We are observing what free-living humans are doing (we are not controlling anything), and we are comparing this to the outcomes we are observing. This is how we know exercise helps us live longer, obesity shortens our lifespan, etc.

Highest level of experimental evidence is the randomized controlled trial (RCT). You predict what happens with an intervention, you apply the intervention, you see if your prediction holds true. Not all questions can be approached with an RCT, of course.

But what really matters it the BODY OF EVIDENCE. That is why the systematic review is considered the strongest evidence...it is a collection of all evidence that exists on a topic, systematically gathered, and synthesized to come to the most likely conclusion.

RFK, Jr. might be able to cherry-pick a piece of evidence here and there, but his argument is strongly refuted by the body of evidence regarding vaccine efficacy and safety. We should be open to the idea that for certain populations, vaccine risks (which absolutely do exist) might potentially outweigh benefits; and that is probably a question and a topic that should be studied more. But I have heard enough outrageous statements come out of his mouth that fly in the face of existing evidence to consider him a charlatan, and to not really want to waste any more of my life trying to take his schtick seriously.

I am also not interested in, "But look at this one video where he says something that is reasonable!" He talks out of both sides of his mouth, sounding reasonable when in a setting where it is expected, and going full-blown crazy in other settings. He is a serial liar, and no one should take him seriously unless they are hungry for the snake oil he is selling.

I completely agree with your first paragraph and that's what I was alluding to in my post to Heyman. You need to look at the facts and then decide if that person is manipulating facts to paint a picture that isn't accurate.

You mention how certain populations might have different risks than others. For instance kids not needing the covid vax. An issue I have is the main argument for these pharmaceutical companies not having our best interests in mind is money. When you already know that argument, and then you see them in 2024 still saying kids should get vaxed, in my mind they aren't making an honest mistake. If they come out and say the risk outweighs the benefits for kids, they will make less money. Once you see something so big and obvious like that, you start seeing small, less obvious stuff. Some of that smaller stuff might not be anything. But some of it probably is.

Do you happen to remember any outrageous statements Kennedy has made? I'd be curious to hear some.

One thing I moat definitely am not is hungry for what he's selling. I've got four young kids. The last thing I want is a crooked pharmaceutical industry.

 

[PCHawk]

Each day, the news gets even more strange.

The FBI is preparing to disband a team of specialists charged with combating foreign threats to US elections.

Nothing to see here. Flood the zone.

Hey at least it's the FBI. The left completely trusts them.

 

[PCHawk]

Not sure if you've looked at Gaza on a map. It's exactly 25 miles of coastline and 5 miles wide with no port. Gaza is microscopic as countries/territories/settlements go. How does a 25 mile coastline with no port, no industry, no fresh water access, and no natural resources fit into "prime" status for any country unless it's connected to something else? It's got nothing appealing about it. Go take a good hard look at it on google maps.

The Palestinians have (had) 2.3 million people crammed inside the walls. Yes, it's a walled off area that you can't leave or enter at will.


They got the shittiest part of Israel because that's what Israel offered them. It's no different than most Indian reservations in the US. It doesn't really matter if there were better areas.

I've got a weird obsession with maps so I know exactly where it is. Once again, you are talking more about the situation being shitty than the land itself. 99.9% of the time if you said land that accesses a body of water is preferable over land that doesn't. Are you arguing that this time falls into the .1%? Or are accidentally arguing that their situation is shitty and think that somehow relates to the land being shitty? You say no ports? Just because they aren't allowed to, don't know how to, or don't prioritize building a port doesn't mean the land is shitty. You also bring up the population compared to the size. I also never once argued they were given enough land and I even agree they weren't given enough. That's a good conversation to have, it's just not relevant to my original point.

 

[Hay Man]

Quick poll for the crowd:

Is the Earth round or flat?