Keith&Co.
Contributor
Which certainly seems to be in character for him.This isn't just "party before country," then. It is Trump before all else.
You know he didn't run for President to help anyone but The Donald.
Which certainly seems to be in character for him.This isn't just "party before country," then. It is Trump before all else.
No different than anybody else.
I'm sorry, but I find your constant false equivalency and teenage angst at any institution of governance annoying. All political parties face issues involving partisanship and other challenges as well, but to be blunt, if Clinton had won the election we wouldn't be in this dark shadowy place. "Everyone does it" neither requires depth of analysis nor nuance, and while it may be popular within certain crowds, it's attitudes like that that helped toss this election to Trump.
I'm sorry, but I find your constant false equivalency and teenage angst at any institution of governance annoying. All political parties face issues involving partisanship and other challenges as well, but to be blunt, if Clinton had won the election we wouldn't be in this dark shadowy place. "Everyone does it" neither requires depth of analysis nor nuance, and while it may be popular within certain crowds, it's attitudes like that that helped toss this election to Trump.
Your cognitive bias is showing.
And your confirmation bias of Clinton is the savior as well, so I unilaterally disregard your hyperbole.
Your cognitive bias is showing.
And your confirmation bias of Clinton is the savior as well, so I unilaterally disregard your hyperbole.
Ha! Yeah, I'm the singer of Clinton's praises...yeah. Cognitive bias isn't words you trout out when you don't agree with someone. Doing that would be a sign of cognitive bias. I mentioned Clinton because she was the only opposition that had a shot at winning vs. Trump. If any other name would have been in that position I would have used it. The name as a matter of fact is actually immaterial to this discussion at the moment. If Jill Stein had been that person I would have said so.
I have no doubt you unilaterally disregard my remarks, but you don't show any understanding of the words you use. This is problematic, because even if you're arguing a correct point in the future, someone that has actual knowledge of logical fallacies and biases will expose your ignorance.
I'm sorry, but I find your constant false equivalency and teenage angst at any institution of governance annoying. All political parties face issues involving partisanship and other challenges as well, but to be blunt, if Clinton had won the election we wouldn't be in this dark shadowy place. "Everyone does it" neither requires depth of analysis nor nuance, and while it may be popular within certain crowds, it's attitudes like that that helped toss this election to Trump.
Your cognitive bias is showing.
And your confirmation bias of Clinton is the savior as well, so I unilaterally disregard your hyperbole.
Your cognitive bias is showing.
And your confirmation bias of Clinton is the savior as well, so I unilaterally disregard your hyperbole.
Ha! Yeah, I'm the singer of Clinton's praises...yeah. Cognitive bias isn't words you trout out when you don't agree with someone. Doing that would be a sign of cognitive bias. I mentioned Clinton because she was the only opposition that had a shot at winning vs. Trump. If any other name would have been in that position I would have used it. The name as a matter of fact is actually immaterial to this discussion at the moment. If Jill Stein had been that person I would have said so.
I have no doubt you unilaterally disregard my remarks, but you don't show any understanding of the words you use. This is problematic, because even if you're arguing a correct point in the future, someone that has actual knowledge of logical fallacies and biases will expose your ignorance.
This might sound silly, but what about an arrest? If Trump has actually broken laws instead of just behaving in a way unfit for the office, couldn't he just be put on trial and convicted by a jury of people who aren't House Republicans?
Your cognitive bias is showing.
And your confirmation bias of Clinton is the savior as well, so I unilaterally disregard your hyperbole.
What cognitive bias? What confirmation bias? What hyperbole?
If something is true it is not a logical fallacy, at least as far as I know.
Gosh you think you are so much more clever than you are. But please, continue.Ha! Yeah, I'm the singer of Clinton's praises...yeah. Cognitive bias isn't words you trout out when you don't agree with someone. Doing that would be a sign of cognitive bias. I mentioned Clinton because she was the only opposition that had a shot at winning vs. Trump. If any other name would have been in that position I would have used it. The name as a matter of fact is actually immaterial to this discussion at the moment. If Jill Stein had been that person I would have said so.
I have no doubt you unilaterally disregard my remarks, but you don't show any understanding of the words you use. This is problematic, because even if you're arguing a correct point in the future, someone that has actual knowledge of logical fallacies and biases will expose your ignorance.
Which you do knot.
I've been trying to remember that piece of math for so long, several years! Finally I can stop.If something is true it is not a logical fallacy, at least as far as I know.
If something is true it is not a logical fallacy, at least as far as I know.
Not a logical fallacy.
Just an operation that makes no sense but happens to work in one case.
Not a logical fallacy.
Just an operation that makes no sense but happens to work in one case.
But the reason it makes no sense is because of the logic error being performed. That's the point.
But 'irrational numbers' has an actual meaning. It's a useful term.Yet some numbers are completely irrational.
The logic of irrational numeracy?
The FBI is investigating political activists campaigning against the Dakota Access pipeline, diverting agents charged with preventing terrorist attacks to instead focus their attention on indigenous activists and environmentalists.
The Guardian has established that multiple officers within the FBI’s joint terrorism taskforce have attempted to contact at least three people tied to the Standing Rock “water protector” movement in North Dakota.
Personally I'm not too upset about Comey going, though the next guy will likely be worse.
Revealed: FBI terrorism taskforce investigating Standing Rock activists
The FBI is investigating political activists campaigning against the Dakota Access pipeline, diverting agents charged with preventing terrorist attacks to instead focus their attention on indigenous activists and environmentalists.
The Guardian has established that multiple officers within the FBI’s joint terrorism taskforce have attempted to contact at least three people tied to the Standing Rock “water protector” movement in North Dakota.
First claim: calling it a false equivalence.
That is an assumption because he didn't ask me to clarify what I mean, and couldn't consider that I might have a point.
And I really, truly can't tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Haven't been able to for years. They may use different language and words, but when you get past that and take a look at their behavior, much which is childish, it really is pretty much all the same.
And your confirmation bias of Clinton is the savior as well, so I unilaterally disregard your hyperbole.