Hillary faints @ ground zero?

[Jaskalas]

Normally its two politicians running, but not this time. So instead of both sides having political baggage, only one side has it. The other side has different baggage, but not political, so it appears different to some.

The problem with Trump is he promises to be all things to all people.
He is clearly lying on the issues that conflict, how do we know where he stands?
If this wasn't his first office, we could look at previous public policy.

That's a real sticker for arguing why he deserves a vote.

 

[realibrad]

The problem with Trump is he promises to be all things to all people.
He is clearly lying on the issues that conflict, how do we know where he stands?
If this wasn't his first office, we could look at previous public policy.

That's a real sticker for arguing why he deserves a vote.

While he does it more, its something almost all politicians do. Hillary was not for gay marriage until she was. She was for the trade agreement until she was not. Chasing popular opinion is nothing new in that sense.

 

[ivwshane]

While he does it more, its something almost all politicians do. Hillary was not for gay marriage until she was. She was for the trade agreement until she was not. Chasing popular opinion is nothing new in that sense.

We have over ten years of Hillary evolving gradually on this issue, just as most Americans have, do we have that same gradual change with trump? I doubt it, as he has changed his stance on many issues in this election cycle alone.

 

[realibrad]

We have over ten years of Hillary evolving gradually on this issue, just as most Americans have, do we have that same gradual change with trump? I doubt it, as he has changed his stance on many issues in this election cycle alone.

The difference is that Hillary is not like most Americans. When you have political power and push for anti gay laws, you dont get a pass and say your ideas were evolving. By no means was she calling for the death of gays, but still pushed for anti gay policies.

I agree that Trump is all over the place though. But honestly, I would bet any politician would be with a base that is so fragmented. Hillary changed real quick on that trade deal when she realized her base did not like it.

 

[Victorian Gray]

We have over ten years of Hillary evolving gradually on this issue, just as most Americans have, do we have that same gradual change with trump? I doubt it, as he has changed his stance on many issues in this election cycle alone.

20+ years of anti Clinton propaganda is still delivering the goods to the American electorate.

If it's politician "A" it's called an 'evolving stance on the issue'. If it's Clinton, it's simply an example of her pathological hunger for personal power.

Just ask Kathleen Willey's cat...

 

[ivwshane]

The difference is that Hillary is not like most Americans. When you have political power and push for anti gay laws, you dont get a pass and say your ideas were evolving. By no means was she calling for the death of gays, but still pushed for anti gay policies.

I agree that Trump is all over the place though. But honestly, I would bet any politician would be with a base that is so fragmented. Hillary changed real quick on that trade deal when she realized her base did not like it.

She pushed for anti gay laws? That's some good spin there.

She also didn't change on trade deals, she still supports them, she just doesn't support the TPP as it is now.

 

[Jhhnn]

What conservative and what were they saying? If you mean Trump I never claimed he was correct about Hillary herself being involved and laid out what you basically just agreed to. The farthest I went with the Hillary connection is faulting her for not strongly rejecting the whole birther thing at the time. If you're specific about what some other unspecified conservative said I'll address it but it's probably safe to say that 99% of what has been said on the birther topic is crap with some tiny element of irrelevant truth contained within to make it sound plausible enough to not be rejected out of hand.

The whole birtherism thing was just a rumor prior to the 2008 election, after which the right wing whipped the gullible into a frenzy so as to discredit Obama. Donald only jumped onboard as he contemplated a presidential run in 2011& never let off until his recent announcement.

 

[MongGrel]

This thread has went so far off track it's ridiculous to begin with.

The only reason I can think of it being bumped non stopped would just to keep the fainting thing on the front page.

 

[realibrad]

She pushed for anti gay laws? That's some good spin there.

She also didn't change on trade deals, she still supports them, she just doesn't support the TPP as it is now.

She was not for DOMA? How is it spin? I'm for Hillary over Trump fyi.

Also, politifact seems to disagree with you about the TPP.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-now-opposes-trans-pacific-partners/

Don't drink the Kool-aid.

 

[agent00f]

We are talking about the use of a term. Again, if you believe that having racists in a system will likely cause that system to reflect the people running it, thats logical. What happened was that someone questioned if the systems were as racist as they were before, not the people. He clearly said that people are still racist, he just questions if the systems are as racist as they were before. That is what started it.

Then, by my understanding of your comments, started to question if you understood him questioning systems, and not the racism of people. For this part, we are trying to debate the interpretation and use of systemic racism. Any paper is going to use systemic the same way I am. Systemic means the system has inherent racism, regardless of the individual views of the operators.

This is what happened:
1. I used the well-defined term systemic racism
2. You didn't know what that was and insist it should be systematic racism or whatever dumbshit concoction
3. I charitably explained what systemic racism was to you
4. You still don't understand anything yet fell the need to keep mouthing off

This subject of your worthless weaseling has nothing to do systemic racism or anything of substance. It's like someone bringing up imaginary numbers, and you arguing numbers can't be imaginary and anything not real should be called indeterminate, then trying to work whatever link you can dig up to "prove" imaginary numbers aren't really fantasy.

Because the methodology in the first study cannot be verified and thus the numbers cannot be verified. If you have a study, and you dont give out the logic and data you use, then nobody should believe it. The foundation of science is that you should be able to replicate and get the same outcomes. That should be pretty obvious.

Your claim was that X amount of people died because of US forces. The number you gave came from only one source that was discredited. What else is there to say?

No. The New England Journal of Medicine did a far larger study and found far less deaths than your Lancet study. The NEJM study found less deaths by a factor of 4. That is huge. So you have a bunch of researchers question their numbers. You also have AAPOR question the data and the ASA backing them up. Even if you dont think the AAPOR is meaningful then you should at least be able to say that the ASA backing them is important.

Again, I have facts, and all you have done is try to discredit me instead of arguments and data.

If anyone wants to look at the data, here is the NEJM's own research.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa0707782#t=article

This is so hilarious. You still can't figure out that NEJM (nor the lancet) doesn't do studies, it's a publication journal. You literally no fucking clue about academic anything, yet see fit to argue about the details of epistemological studies.

As mentioned the NEJM and Lancet papers correlate substantially in all but one category, it's literally mentioned in your own link. You should already know that given you've linked it before, if you could ever come close to understanding anything they're saying.

 

[realibrad]

This is what happened:
1. I used the well-defined term systemic racism
2. You didn't know what that was and insist it should be systematic racism or whatever dumbshit concoction
3. I charitably explained what systemic racism was to you
4. You still don't understand anything yet fell the need to keep mouthing off

This subject of your worthless weaseling has nothing to do systemic racism or anything of substance. It's like someone bringing up imaginary numbers, and you arguing numbers can't be imaginary and anything not real should be called indeterminate, then trying to work whatever link you can dig up to "prove" imaginary numbers aren't really fantasy.

Same thing over and over. Insult me and don't none of my arguments. I have made claims and explained them. All you seem to be willing to do is insult me and use that to dismiss my arguments. I did not insist that you should use term X, I questioned the use of systemic racism in the context of your posts. I do not see how they fit, because of the meaning I believe systemic racism holds. When I look at multiple sources I hold the same understanding of the term. I explained why I understand the term the way I do and why I believe the definition fits my usage, and why I think it does not fit your usage.

Also, not sure where I have been rude or offensive in this thread.

This is so hilarious. You still can't figure out that NEJM (nor the lancet) doesn't do studies, it's a publication journal. You literally no fucking clue about academic anything, yet see fit to argue about the details of epistemological studies.

As mentioned the NEJM and Lancet papers correlate substantially in all but one category, it's literally mentioned in your own link. You should already know that given you've linked it before, if you could ever come close to understanding anything they're saying.

I understand the difference between researchers and Journals. It is common practice to refer to the the study as the Lancet study, even though Lancet itself did not do the study. Again, another deflection. Not sure why you think that I think the Journals did the study, other than saying the study by NEJM ect.

The 2nd Lancet study is where you got your numbers from. That study gave 650,000+ excess deaths. When the NEJM study was done, which was much larger and far more comprehensive, came to 151,000 excess deaths. That is a fact.

 

[agent00f]

Same thing over and over. Insult me and don't none of my arguments. I have made claims and explained them. All you seem to be willing to do is insult me and use that to dismiss my arguments. I did not insist that you should use term X, I questioned the use of systemic racism in the context of your posts. I do not see how they fit, because of the meaning I believe systemic racism holds. When I look at multiple sources I hold the same understanding of the term. I explained why I understand the term the way I do and why I believe the definition fits my usage, and why I think it does not fit your usage.

Also, not sure where I have been rude or offensive in this thread.

It's complete rude for someone who has absolutely no clue what the hell is going on to keep lying about it. Eg.:

I understand the difference between researchers and Journals. It is common practice to refer to the the study as the Lancet study, even though Lancet itself did not do the study. Again, another deflection. Not sure why you think that I think the Journals did the study, other than saying the study by NEJM ect.

No. The New England Journal of Medicine did a far larger study and found far less deaths than your Lancet study.

Worth pointing out this is the second time I've highlighted this.

 

[realibrad]

It's complete rude for someone who has absolutely no clue what the hell is going on to keep lying about it. Eg.:

Me saying that I know the difference is the lie I guess. I do not any way to prove that I understand the difference, other than saying that I understand Journals publish papers and researchers do the research.

Worth pointing out this is the second time I've highlighted this.

Again, deflection and distraction. I know the difference between a Journal and researchers. Again, its common practice to attribute the study to the journal because its easier to reference than all of the researchers and donors that actually did the work. The journal typically does nothing more than review the study and publish it. Inherently, the Journal is signing off on the credibility of the study.

That said, you did not address the issue that your Lancet study showed drastically fewer deaths than the larger more complete study.

 

[agent00f]

Me saying that I know the difference is the lie I guess. I do not any way to prove that I understand the difference, other than saying that I understand Journals publish papers and researchers do the research.

Again, deflection and distraction. I know the difference between a Journal and researchers. Again, its common practice to attribute the study to the journal because its easier to reference than all of the researchers and donors that actually did the work. The journal typically does nothing more than review the study and publish it. Inherently, the Journal is signing off on the credibility of the study.

That said, you did not address the issue that your Lancet study showed drastically fewer deaths than the larger more complete study.

Rather amusing that every time something is explained to you, it turns out you knew all about it all along. Sort of like when you finally figured out what systemic and not systematic racism means it turns out you knew what it was all along, in fact quite a bit more than someone familiar with the lit.

Sort of like the day you actually find Burnham's response and knew about the categories measured and how to compare confidence intervals all along, far more than someone constantly mocking your all encompassing ignorance.

 

[realibrad]

Rather amusing that every time something is explained to you, it turns out you knew all about it all along. Sort of like when you finally figured out what systemic and not systematic racism means it turns out you knew what it was all along, in fact quite a bit more than someone familiar with the lit.

First, you are still not using systemic correctly from the examples you listed. I never changed my understanding on systemic because I already knew the definition and usage. I may have many gaps in my knowledge, but vocabulary is not one of them. So I do not agree with your summation on that point. I also do not disagree with the uses that others have, which is something you have tried to argue. I disagree with your usage and your understanding. Again, deflection and distraction.

Sort of like the day you actually find Burnham's response and knew about the categories measured and how to compare confidence intervals all along, far more than someone constantly mocking your all encompassing ignorance.

I am not a researcher and I am not a statistician and do not pretend to be. I also don't need to be those things to make my point. The same way neither of us need to be climate researchers to agree climate change is real. What I do trust is the community and their rigor. When the Lancet study was looked at in the community, it seemed to be far larger than previous studied. When a much larger and far more thorough study was done, it came to very different numbers than the Lancet study. You seem to not want to admit that 4 times lower is not a big deal.

 

[ivwshane]

Rather amusing that every time something is explained to you, it turns out you knew all about it all along. Sort of like when you finally figured out what systemic and not systematic racism means it turns out you knew what it was all along, in fact quite a bit more than someone familiar with the lit.

Sort of like the day you actually find Burnham's response and knew about the categories measured and how to compare confidence intervals all along, far more than someone constantly mocking your all encompassing ignorance.

Can we say Dunning-Kruger?

 

[agent00f]

First, you are still not using systemic correctly from the examples you listed. I never changed my understanding on systemic because I already knew the definition and usage. I may have many gaps in my knowledge, but vocabulary is not one of them. So I do not agree with your summation on that point. I also do not disagree with the uses that others have, which is something you have tried to argue. I disagree with your usage and your understanding. Again, deflection and distraction.

Sure, you knew the definition and usage but saw fit to correct someone using the term correctly with "systematic racism", then insisting that was right until it was no long feasible, then trying to weasel with whatever the hell else I didn't bother to read.

I am not a researcher and I am not a statistician and do not pretend to be. I also don't need to be those things to make my point. The same way neither of us need to be climate researchers to agree climate change is real. What I do trust is the community and their rigor. When the Lancet study was looked at in the community, it seemed to be far larger than previous studied. When a much larger and far more thorough study was done, it came to very different numbers than the Lancet study. You seem to not want to admit that 4 times lower is not a big deal.

I recall your star witness in the matter was some article in a foreign relations journal. You literally just picked the link most critical of the study without pondering whether they knew any more about epidemiology than you do. Speaking of climate change, consider more carefully which side of the issue you would be on. This would all be rather more comedic if you weren't serious.

 

[realibrad]

Sure, you knew the definition and usage but saw fit to correct someone using the term correctly with "systematic racism", then insisting that was right until it was no long feasible, then trying to weasel with whatever the hell else I didn't bother to read.

Wait, you think that I now think you used Systemic Racism correctly? I do not. Until you explain what system. Saying culture is the system is stupid, because every culture thus every system is racist, so if everything is racist. There would be no need for a term to differentiate when everything is that thing.

I recall your star witness in the matter was some article in a foreign relations journal. You literally just picked the link most critical of the study without pondering whether they knew any more about epidemiology than you do. Speaking of climate change, consider more carefully which side of the issue you would be on. This would all be rather more comedic if you weren't serious.

I believe climate change is real, because the evidence is there. I believe people are the one of the main, if not the main reason.

I gave you more than the single study that you are now talking about. That was the first one I gave you, which was also backed up by other sources.

Are you now willing to admit that the number the Lancet study gave is not as good as the NEJM number?

 

[agent00f]

Wait, you think that I now think you used Systemic Racism correctly? I do not. Until you explain what system. Saying culture is the system is stupid, because every culture thus every system is racist, so if everything is racist. There would be no need for a term to differentiate when everything is that thing.

No, I think you have zero clue what's going on and just mouth off with the biggest words you managed to remember like systematic.

I believe climate change is real, because the evidence is there. I believe people are the one of the main, if not the main reason.

I gave you more than the single study that you are now talking about. That was the first one I gave you, which was also backed up by other sources.

Are you now willing to admit that the number the Lancet study gave is not as good as the NEJM number?

Just your star "study" (it's not, btw, just someone like you who somehow managed to get a job) is enough to demonstrate how any attempt at explaining anything to you always turns out.

 

[realibrad]

No, I think you have zero clue what's going on and just mouth off with the biggest words you managed to remember like systematic.

Again, don't address any arguments, simply attempt to impugn (small enough word?) me so you do not have to. Same chicken fucking over and over.

Just your star "study" (it's not, btw, just someone like you who somehow managed to get a job) is enough to demonstrate how any attempt at explaining anything to you always turns out.

See what I mean. The numbers in the Lancet study should not be accepted when a research paper does a better study and comes to very different numbers. You can't address that though, because you are far too busy insulting me. My my, the mental gymnastics you wonderfully execute must at some point get exhausting. Perhaps I cannot put my self into a position to understand your unwillingness to not admit facts that makes me continue this. The way you simply will not admit when you are so obviously wrong is interesting to me. No doubt you will simply accuse me of doing the very same thing, without giving any sort of an explanation, but I will be here to read it.

 

[agent00f]

Again, don't address any arguments, simply attempt to impugn (small enough word?) me so you do not have to. Same chicken fucking over and over.

People with no clue what what's going on mouthing off about who knows what isn't an argument.

See what I mean. The numbers in the Lancet study should not be accepted when a research paper does a better study and comes to very different numbers. You can't address that though, because you are far too busy insulting me. My my, the mental gymnastics you wonderfully execute must at some point get exhausting. Perhaps I cannot put my self into a position to understand your unwillingness to not admit facts that makes me continue this. The way you simply will not admit when you are so obviously wrong is interesting to me. No doubt you will simply accuse me of doing the very same thing, without giving any sort of an explanation, but I will be here to read it.

The lancet is a prestigious medical journal with expertise in epidemiology rather unaffected by what some foreign relations dumbshit thinks. It's pretty obvious at this point you'll never learn these basic lessons so it's best to just drop the course instead of insisting you deserve a passing grade.

 

[realibrad]

People with no clue what what's going on mouthing off about who knows what isn't an argument.

The lancet is a prestigious medical journal with expertise in epidemiology rather unaffected by what some foreign relations dumbshit thinks. It's pretty obvious at this point you'll never learn these basic lessons so it's best to just drop the course instead of insisting you deserve a passing grade.

The New England Journal of Medicine is also a prestigious medical journal with expertise in epidemiology. Again, they did a far larger study that looked at the situation in far more detail. In every way the NEJM study was better in its methodology and scope.

You will not or can not admit the Lancet numbers are far too high. You seem to believe that because it was an epidemiological it cannot be wrong. There is a better study, and it has been shown to you over and over. Why can you simply not admit that the 650,000 is too high?

 

[Jhhnn]

She was not for DOMA? How is it spin? I'm for Hillary over Trump fyi.

I think that the Clintons were only "for" DOMA in the sense that they saw it as a blocking maneuver against a Constitutional Amendment at the time which would have been a disaster for gay rights. It was also 20 years ago at the height of the Gingrich revolution, one of those periodic up-swellings of know nothing sentiment among the electorate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-marriage-amendment-to-the-u-s-constitution/

Dunno that the the threat was as great as they perceived it to be but I don't think Bill acted out of anti-gay sentiment.

If you're for Hillary over Trump, why do you spend so much effort tearing her down?

 

[realibrad]

I think that the Clintons were only "for" DOMA in the sense that they saw it as a blocking maneuver against a Constitutional Amendment at the time which would have been a disaster for gay rights. It was also 20 years ago at the height of the Gingrich revolution, one of those periodic up-swellings of know nothing sentiment among the electorate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-marriage-amendment-to-the-u-s-constitution/

Dunno that the the threat was as great as they perceived it to be but I don't think Bill acted out of anti-gay sentiment.

If you're for Hillary over Trump, why do you spend so much effort tearing her down?

If it were just her attempt to stop an amendment then why did she say in 2007 she was "opposed" to gay marriage? If it was just a defense, then why did it take her so long to stop saying she was opposed? Maybe Bill did it to stop an amendment, but Hillary did not.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ry-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/

This is the problem with political people like yourself. You see criticism of your person as attacks, and criticism of the other side as pointing out problems. Hillary is not a great choice, expect when compared to someone like Trump. I don't believe in ignoring faults because it might help the other person. Also, keep in mind that this forum is far more left than right. In almost any other setting I am seen as someone firm to the left, but here I am often accused of being to the right. People look for signals and one big one is who you criticize. If you criticize the left, then you must be pro right.

 

[ivwshane]

If it were just her attempt to stop an amendment then why did she say in 2007 she was "opposed" to gay marriage? If it was just a defense, then why did it take her so long to stop saying she was opposed? Maybe Bill did it to stop an amendment, but Hillary did not.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ry-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/

This is the problem with political people like yourself. You see criticism of your person as attacks, and criticism of the other side as pointing out problems. Hillary is not a great choice, expect when compared to someone like Trump. I don't believe in ignoring faults because it might help the other person. Also, keep in mind that this forum is far more left than right. In almost any other setting I am seen as someone firm to the left, but here I am often accused of being to the right. People look for signals and one big one is who you criticize. If you criticize the left, then you must be pro right.

She was opposed to gay marriage but she was for civil unions with the same rights as a married couple.

You can say Hillary wasn't always pro gay or that she wasn't pushing for gay rights but you can't say she was pushing for an anti gay agenda, that's bull shit and you know it. Her positions must be viewed in the same way history is viewed and that's in context.