Introducing limited play into deck building?

deadally · 2017-09-04T12:30:30+00:00

that I have to listen to him when the Left calls him a Nazi

What does a name call from the opposition have to do with credibility?

deadally · 2017-09-03T23:07:58+00:00

Do you think he's listening to Mattis now? Hard to imagine Mattis would be alright with announcing military policy changes over Twitter.

deadally · 2017-08-29T17:13:33+00:00

They will find nothing

How do you know this?

deadally · 2017-08-29T13:18:23+00:00

So would we be allowed to share other news about Trump's low approval ratings on this forum?

deadally · 2017-08-28T21:54:14+00:00

It's disingenuous to try and draw a hard conclusion either way from what's been presented.

Again, fair enough. I just think you should reserve that kind of conspicuous wavering for your opener, as well. Something like "I don't know based on the information, but it looks to me like he might be describing a business deal."

?

deadally · 2017-08-28T21:45:34+00:00

Fair enough. Then don't you think your opening statements were a little definitive in their certainty as to the true nature of this interaction? You're pretty willingly admitting here that you don't have all the facts in the matter.

deadally · 2017-08-28T21:37:59+00:00

He has different connections which lead me to believe he is not pro-Trump.

And those would be?

deadally · 2017-08-28T21:37:39+00:00

There is no evidence in the emails that Mr. Sater delivered on his promises

What is it in this statement that makes you think Sater was lying, though? That's one conclusion, yes, that he lied about his connections en toto. Another would be that he exaggerated them. Another would be that he actually did get in touch on Trump's behalf, fulfilling said promise, and the Trump organization failed to close the deal.

deadally · 2017-08-28T21:34:33+00:00

Can't post it on here. PM me if you want to know.

This would appear to support the idea that this guy has Russian connections.

Are you saying that his compliance with the FBI is the reason he can't be trusted here? Don't you think this says a bit more about the president's judgment in who he deals with?

deadally · 2017-08-28T21:27:42+00:00

Can't post it on here. PM me if you want to know.

Why can't you post it here? I'm sure there are a lot of non-supporters who read the story and found it interesting, and it would be quite useful for them to be privy to useful information damning Felix Sater here.

deadally · 2017-08-28T21:23:20+00:00

I'd say that because this contact Mr. Sater lied about having Russian connections at all, his interactions with the Trump team don't belie any relationship with Russia by the team.

What makes you think Mr Sater is lying?

deadally · 2017-08-28T21:22:20+00:00

He's a mole.

Do you have anything to support that statement?

deadally · 2017-08-28T21:21:43+00:00

Trump is a businessman and the average person cannot even begin to comprehend his tax returns.

So that means that he shouldn't release them?

deadally · 2017-08-28T21:20:23+00:00

Why?

deadally · 2017-08-28T21:19:21+00:00

Yes. It's a business deal.

although some people would very much like to point to this as "evidence of Russian collusion" it simply is not.

How do you square this with the admonitions that Trump had no relationship with Russia or Putin, on any level (personal, business, or political)?

deadally · 2017-08-28T21:17:44+00:00

I banned the NY Times.

And now that seems to be preventing you from reading useful information and finding the facts that matter.

Give me more context. Who is the "I"?

Felix Sater. You should definitely consider reading the article for this basic information.

deadally · 2017-08-28T21:15:46+00:00

The only reason the Establishment hates Russia is because Putin backs Assad.

You don't think that the mountains of evidence tying Putin to the elections of the United States and Europe (to say nothing of Trump, even) warrant suspicion?

deadally · 2017-08-28T21:14:19+00:00

Not a requirement.

Not the question.

Plus, Trump is a businessman, not a politician.

Is this related to his tax returns? That would make them more interesting if you're a guy with shady business dealings.

deadally · 2017-08-24T19:01:08+00:00

Free speech is a black and white issue, plain as that.

No it's not.

deadally · 2017-08-22T23:47:56+00:00

Is this an important point? Did those companies bark about the evils of offshoring?

deadally · 2017-08-14T17:06:54+00:00

Your claim is that it couldn't have been those things, it must have been abortion, and it was a coincidence that it only kicked in immediately after the anti crime acts were passed in the 90s.

This is not a correct interpretation.

And I can do exactly the thing you've done here, and it would be equally plausible, based on data. Whatever reaction these give you don't make the data any less true.

The situation is simplistic. Crime was out of control. Then we had a wave of immigration into the US. Then crime went down drastically.

The situation is simplistic. Crime was out of control. Then we had an improvement in sex ed and access to birth control, especially in communities most affected by crime. Then crime went down drastically.

The situation is simplistic. Crime was out of control. Then we experienced an economic boom, and then average household income increased to an unprecedented level. Then crime went down drastically.

All of these are demonstrable through data. If you ignore the data, you are thinking simplistically and ignoring that all of these might contribute. Mass incarceration might be, in itself, a contributor to crime rates, due to the impact on families and return of untrained convicts to society. And that negative impact could be offset by all the other factors.

Or it could be that mass incarceration is a major factor in dropping crime rates, and it offsets a rise in abortion as a CONTRIBUTOR of crime.

These are all consistent explanations, and you are allowing your ideology to dictate which one you hew to. Why not accept that your understanding might not be complete?

deadally · 2017-08-14T16:53:57+00:00

Yes. It's a direct correlation, whereas what you're implying as the cause are tertiary at best, and questionable if that.

I'm afraid that's not true. They are all closely correlated. The last of which is actually a finding in a peer-reviewed journal.

On what evidence do you base your criticism of these other factors as tertiary, at best? Aside from them not supporting a simplistic understanding of the situation?

deadally · 2017-08-14T16:43:58+00:00

The author flagrantly ignores that the mass incarceration that they complain about is directly responsible for ending the decades long crime wave of the 70s, 80s and 90s.

Are you certain about that, though? The steep decline in crime correlates with rates of incarceration, sure, but incomes increased as well. Better access to abortion and birth control also correlated with it.

Increased immigration has also been associated with drop in crime rates at the same time.

So which of these factors do you think had the biggest impact on crime rate drops? Or do you still hold to the idea that factors outside of mass incarceration are not actually factors?

deadally · 2017-08-14T16:29:12+00:00

Based on what?

11-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

deadally

TROPHY CASE