Elizabeth Warren

[70boiler]

Well, Trump made improvements with NAFTA. BC, Bush, and Obama did not. As for China, BC, Bush, and Obama just let the status quo go-that is not the answer. Steal US tech, patents, military tech and just let it go is poor.

I am a pro farmer person. That said, even here at Purdue, they are really ignorant if the future and 20 year past of the soy market, tariffs or not.

I don't think that the NAFTA changes are overwhelming improvement, better yes but it really was little more than NAFTA II without the name which really was the whole point of it. Personally, I think the disadvantages and damage from the withdrawal from Pan Pacific significantly offsets NAFTA II gains. That withdrawal set up the trade war with China becoming a virtual one on one as opposed to the potential pressure that would have been available via a multinational pressurization, and nearly all because the President's ego requires him to seek to undermine anything remotely attributable to Obama.

 

[Purdue97]

Really now? Some news for you from Politifact:




In 2016, we fact-checked a claim that "Trump refuses to denounce the KKK." We rated the statement Mostly False.

The ad distorted Trump’s record by cherry picking one interview in which CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Trump about Duke in February 2016. Duke founded a Louisiana chapter of the KKK in 1974, but left in 1980 because of its tendency towards violence. Since then, Duke has been a noted white supremacist.

Tapper asked Trump if he would condemn Duke and say that he didn’t want the vote of white supremacists.

Trump replied: "Well, I have to look at the group. I mean, I don't know what group you're talking about. You wouldn't want me to condemn a group that I know nothing about. I would have to look. If you would send me a list of the groups, I will do research on them. And, certainly, I would disavow if I thought there was something wrong."

Trump later blamed a bad ear piece, saying he could barely hear the questions. In the days that followed, Trump rejected Duke’s support in interviews on Good Morning America and Morning Joe, calling him a "bad person who I disavowed on numerous occasions over the years."

The Biden campaign pointed to that interview when we asked them for evidence to support Biden’s claim. The campaign also referred us to instances when Trump denied knowing anything about Duke or gave testy disavowals.

We found Trump denounced Duke years before his interview with Tapper.

In 1991, CNN’s Larry King asked Trump what Duke’s success with white voters in a failed bid for the Louisiana governorship represented.

Trump replied: "I hate seeing what it represents, but I guess it just shows there's a lot of hostility in this country. There's a tremendous amount of hostility in the United States."

In 2000, Trump declined to run a Reform Party presidential bid in part because the party attracted Duke’s support. Trump also called Duke "a bigot, a racist, a problem."

During his 2016 bid, Trump disavowed Duke, but it was not as strongly worded as some of his earlier rebukes.

In 2015, when asked about a quasi-endorsement by Duke, Trump replied that he wouldn’t want his endorsement. Asked if he would repudiate Duke, he replied: "Sure, I would do that, if it made you feel better. I don’t know anything about him. Somebody told me yesterday, whoever he is, he did endorse me. Actually I don’t think it was an endorsement. He said I was absolutely the best of all of the candidates."

In 2016, when asked about Duke’s endorsement of him, Trump said he wasn’t aware of it.

"I didn’t even know he endorsed me," he said. "David Duke endorsed me? Okay, all right. I disavow, okay?"

Sometimes Trump sounded exasperated by the question.

"I totally disavow the Klu Klux Klan," he said in a debate. "I totally disavow David Duke. I’ve been doing it now for two weeks, ... you’re probably about the 18th person that’s asked me the question."

What Trump said about events led by Spencer
We didn’t find any instance when Trump was asked to denounce Spencer by name. But Trump has criticized events where Spencer, the head of a white-identity think tank, played a key role.

In November 2016, a New York Times journalist asked Trump about a recent conference in Washington D.C. of people who pledged allegiance to Nazism. Trump said, "Of course I condemn. I disavow and condemn."

At the conference, Spencer saluted supporters with, "Hail Trump."

Spencer was one of the leaders behind the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017 where a white supremacist rammed a car into a counterprotester, killing her.

Trump’s statement on Aug. 12, 2017, cast blame on "many sides", detracting from his overall message condemning bigotry.

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides," he said. "It's been going on for a long time in our country."

In the following days, Trump condemned bigotry and neo-Nazis and white nationalists. But in the same breath he also told reporters, "You also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."

In other instances, Trump has condemned hate groups or racism without singling out any racist leader.

Following the mass shooting in El Paso, Trump condemned the shooter, who he said posted a manifesto "consumed by racist hate."

Our ruling
Biden said Trump hasn’t condemned Duke and Spencer. That’s an exaggeration.

Trump didn’t condemn Duke when asked about him in an interview with Tapper on CNN in 2016. But decades before, he had clearly condemned the former KKK leader -- and he did so after the Tapper interview, too. Some of his disavowals have been brief.

We can’t find an example of Trump condemning Spencer by name or being asked to do so, but he has criticized gatherings where Spencer, a white nationalist, played a major role, including Charlottesville.

But Trump has at times detracted from his own denunciation of racism. Most notably, Trump said there were "very fine people, on both sides" at the Charlottesville march. At other times his denunciations have seemed reluctantly made. But he has made them.

DJT is no more a racist than you are.

This happens a lot with Trump. Take one or two sentences of multiple interviews and here come the exagerations.

There was a link here awhile back to the Charlottesville interview where he talked about fine people on both sides. In short, basically he states it started out fine, both sides protesting and using rights, then bad apples showed up. Oh the horrors.

 

[70boiler]

I don't think there is any debate that Trump's personal behavior leaves much improvement as are some others. Not sure that is really debatable...even though that is 95% of the discussions surrounding him it appears...

Classically understated...well done.

 

[PurdueFan1]

This happens a lot with Trump. Take one or two sentences of multiple interviews and here come the exagerations.

There was a link here awhile back to the Charlottesville interview where he talked about fine people on both sides. In short, basically he states it started out fine, both sides protesting and using rights, then bad apples showed up. Oh the horrors.

It happens a lot with Trump because he's the one who allows for it, over and over. He says something one day and the total opposite the next. I'm not going to let his behavior be dismissed as 'that's just who he is'. It's not right.

 

[Purdue97]

I don't think that the NAFTA changes are overwhelming improvement, better yes but it really was little more than NAFTA II without the name which really was the whole point of it. Personally, I think the disadvantages and damage from the withdrawal from Pan Pacific significantly offsets NAFTA II gains. That withdrawal set up the trade war with China becoming a virtual one on one as opposed to the potential pressure that would have been available via a multinational pressurization, and nearly all because the President's ego requires him to seek to undermine anything remotely attributable to Obama.

Trumps ego with PanPacific deal?

In the end, I was not aware any Presidential candidate from either party supported that deal. And I am talking not the final 3 but more like the final 6 candidates back in primaries.

 

[Purdue97]

It happens a lot with Trump because he's the one who allows for it, over and over. He says something one day and the total opposite the next. I'm not going to let his behavior be dismissed as 'that's just who he is'. It's not right.

In totality I do not disagree.

In regard to Duke and Charlotte, I think that was distorted a lot. I mean, with Charlotte, that was in same interview, and two sentences are picked out, and the rest were ignored.

 

[bonefish1]

This makes zero sense. What are Nikki Haley's policies? Exactly. You don't know. But she would have a great shot? Come on.

Ummm...as far as I know, she hasn’t declared her 2024 candidacy yet, therefore, she hasn’t released her positions or policies.
But, as a big time lefty, I know that a conservative woman of color running on the Republican ticket is your greatest fear.

 

[tjreese]

She's getting attention but I wouldn't say it's good attention. Your opinion vs my opinion of course but yikes.

that is fair...some like her stands and others not so much. The point is that it would and should be her stands and not whether she is black and a female.

I've often wondered and worried about the effect of group work in the schools...how that plays out years later in an individual and in society. The herd mentality has friends on both sides of the aisle, but there seems to be a lot more today. Another thing I wonder about is the subtle extra learning that goes on in groups in schools. Perhaps someone with an economic background remembers the name, but the square root of the number of people in a group does 80% or more of the work, which has many social complications. I may have to see if I can find the name for that. Anyway, Candace whether you agree or not is arguing with the "group" of the race she belongs.

 

[PurdueFan1]

Ummm...as far as I know, she hasn’t declared her 2024 candidacy yet, therefore, she hasn’t released her positions or policies.
But, as a big time lefty, I know that a conservative woman of color running on the Republican ticket is your greatest fear.

Well I mean DUHHHHH, that's the whole thing. She hasn't laid out a policy yet, which is MY ENTIRE EFFING POINT. The claim was made that she would make a great candidate with zero policy, so I don't know how one comes to that conclusion.

Your second sentence is just bait material and I"m not falling for it. I'll say that I'm more than happy for any POC to run for office but of course it depends on his or her policies.

 

[bonefish1]

Candace Owens? Are you serious?????? Please tell me you aren't serious.

Why do you hate conservative women of color?
First it was Nikki Haley, now Candace Owens? Are you sweating?

 

[Purdue97]

Just a quick FYI reminder - Obama was last President in early January, 2017.

Point is, claiming undesirable people support one politician or another is pretty stupid. Not sure how that was tough to pick up on.

I mean, what party/politician was last one to drop the N word right in Senate floor without reprisal? So they are all racist?

 

[tjreese]

that is fair...some like her stands and others not so much. The point is that it would and should be her stands and not whether she is black and a female.

I've often wondered and worried about the effect of group work in the schools...how that plays out years later in an individual and in society. The herd mentality has friends on both sides of the aisle, but there seems to be a lot more today. Another thing I wonder about is the subtle extra learning that goes on in groups in schools. Perhaps someone with an economic background remembers the name, but the square root of the number of people in a group does 80% or more of the work, which has many social complications. I may have to see if I can find the name for that. Anyway, Candace whether you agree or not is arguing with the "group" of the race she belongs.

Well, I'm getting old...ER. It is not 80%, but 50% but since I recall the association with the Pareto principle my mind ran to 80%.

It is Prices law. Price's Law. The square root of the number of people in a domain do 50% of the work. This means that in a company of 10 employees, 3 of them do 1/2 the work. ... Price's Law specifically applies to creative work.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Why do you hate conservative women of color?
First it was Nikki Haley, now Candace Owens? Are you sweating?

Conservatives in general scare them and cause them great pain. Women of color who are of a conservative nature, cause them to have bad dreams at night.

 

[bonefish1]

Well I mean DUHHHHH, that's the whole thing. She hasn't laid out a policy yet, which is MY ENTIRE EFFING POINT. The claim was made that she would make a great candidate with zero policy, so I don't know how one comes to that conclusion.

Your second sentence is just bait material and I"m not falling for it. I'll say that I'm more than happy for any POC to run for office but of course it depends on his or her policies.

Why would you expect her to have laid out policies at this point?
I know enough about her being a conservative woman of color, former Governor, UN ambassador and well regarded in Republican circles to believe she’d be a solid candidate if she chooses to run.

 

[PurdueFan1]

that is fair...some like her stands and others not so much. The point is that it would and should be her stands and not whether she is black and a female.

I've often wondered and worried about the effect of group work in the schools...how that plays out years later in an individual and in society. The herd mentality has friends on both sides of the aisle, but there seems to be a lot more today. Another thing I wonder about is the subtle extra learning that goes on in groups in schools. Perhaps someone with an economic background remembers the name, but the square root of the number of people in a group does 80% or more of the work, which has many social complications. I may have to see if I can find the name for that. Anyway, Candace whether you agree or not is arguing with the "group" of the race she belongs.

So to put some context around Candace here....just today she tweeted out that ' one day, Greta Thunberg will realize that she's a victim of child abuse, not climate change. I genuinely find the video of her circulating to be sad. The Left is stooping to new lows with this blatant example of child exploitation'.

Okay.....so this is someone you want in charge? Bullying a 16 year old because she is worried about the environment? Claiming the left is 'exploiting' her? That's presidential material? (Wait, don't answer....because the president we have now does the same thing). Yes, punching down against someone who cares about the environment to own the libs. SIGN ME THE EFF UP. How is that kind of talk excusable?

You know, if that's Candace's assertion, then the same could be said about her as well: the right is using Candace as a pawn of the right. A POC of color easily swayed and trotted out as a representative of an entire race. See how awful that sounds?

Hard stop with her. She's vile.

 

[PurdueFan1]

Why would you expect her to have laid out policies at this point?
I know enough about her being a conservative woman of color, former Governor, UN ambassador and well regarded in Republican circles to believe she’d be a solid candidate if she chooses to run.

I have nothing against Nikki Haley at this point. But neither you nor I know enough about her to make the proclamation that she would be a great candidate.

 

[PurdueFan1]

Conservatives in general scare them and cause them great pain. Women of color who are of a conservative nature, cause them to have bad dreams at night.

LMAO come on Twin, you're better than this. This is an absurd take and you know it.

I'm against Candace Owens because she's a garbage human being. She punches down the same way Trump does and that is no way to run a country. You may think it's fine. I don't. It's nothing more complicated than that, no matter how many times you try to claim otherwise.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

I have nothing against Nikki Haley at this point. But neither you nor I know enough about her to make the proclamation that she would be a great candidate.

We know as much about her as we do about Liz Warren. Except Nikki has never claimed to be Cherokee.

 

[miksta]

Care to elaborate on troubling economy, peers, hiring statement?

Just offering my perspective on what I'm seeing in the analytics job market, as both a seeker and hiring manager, relative to how it looked 1-2 years ago. Opportunities are becoming more scarce and candidates I'm interviewing are better qualified. Take it FWIW.

 

[PurdueFan1]

We know as much about her as we do about Liz Warren. Except Nikki has never claimed to be Cherokee.

Then maybe you should start paying a bit more attention.

 

[bonefish1]

I have nothing against Nikki Haley at this point. But neither you nor I know enough about her to make the proclamation that she would be a great candidate.

I already laid out what I need to know to at least be very interested in her as a candidate.

Your fear is that if the Republican candidate is a POC, that they’ll win in a landslide since it will destroy your position of the Republican Party being the party of old white men.

 

[bonefish1]

Then maybe you should start paying a bit more attention.

You’re getting really worried about this. Lefty heads would be exploding if Haley runs.

 

[PurdueFan1]

I already laid out what I need to know to at least be very interested in her as a candidate.

Your fear is that if the Republican candidate is a POC, that they’ll win in a landslide since it will destroy your position of the Republican Party being the party of old white men.

Considering the Republican party as it stands now is garbage, I would be all for it. The party right now needs to be nuked.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

LMAO come on Twin, you're better than this. This is an absurd take and you know it.

I'm against Candace Owens because she's a garbage human being. She punches down the same way Trump does and that is no way to run a country. You may think it's fine. I don't. It's nothing more complicated than that, no matter how many times you try to claim otherwise.

No, it's really not absurd PF. I know that my liberal friends...and yes, I do have some...are scared to death of Trump, and any other conservative politician. I know Mike Pence personally, and will say right here that he's as honorable and truthful as it gets, yet too many on the other side, contend he's the devil himself.

And how do you know, other than an early opinion that Owens is garbage? Because you don't agree with some things she says?
Is Hillary garbage? Liz? Do the rumors and innuendo's of Harris scare you? You too are better than that.

This small board is an example that we all need to be more tolerant and more honest in our decision making....and more civil throughout this land.

 

[Purdue97]

Just offering my perspective on what I'm seeing in the analytics job market, as both a seeker and hiring manager, relative to how it looked 1-2 years ago. Opportunities are becoming more scarce and candidates I'm interviewing are better qualified. Take it FWIW.

Hey thanks for the reply.

 

[PurdueFan1]

You’re getting really worried about this. Lefty heads would be exploding if Haley runs.

You’re getting really worried about this. Lefty heads would be exploding if Haley runs.

You're putting words in my mouth. At no point have I said I would be worried if she ran, so you can stop the lying.

I'm saying no one knows her policies, so it's hard to say what kind of candidate she would really be....nothing more than that.

And I just said the republican party as it stands now is a mess, so more power to her or any other woman or POC that wants to run instead. God knows the old white men in charge now are doing a fine job of throwing gas on the already-burning dumpster fire.

 

[PurdueFan1]

No, it's really not absurd PF. I know that my liberal friends...and yes, I do have some...are scared to death of Trump, and any other conservative politician. I know Mike Pence personally, and will say right here that he's as honorable and truthful as it gets, yet too many on the other side, contend he's the devil himself.

And how do you know, other than an early opinion that Owens is garbage? Because you don't agree with some things she says?
Is Hillary garbage? Liz? Do the rumors and innuendo's of Harris scare you? You too are better than that.

This small board is an example that we all need to be more tolerant and more honest in our decision making....and more civil throughout this land.

So then we can call it like this: a huge difference of opinion. Because I THINK Pence is also a garbage human who would love nothing more than to have me wiped from the earth because I'm not straight. Obviously you and I will NEVER agree on him.

I've also seen plenty of Candace Owens speeches and Twitter rants to, again IN MY OPINION, know that she could never successfully be in charge.

It's very clear you and I have night and day views on things. Again, that will never change.

And LOL at your last sentence. I just can't with something like that coming from you of all people.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Just offering my perspective on what I'm seeing in the analytics job market, as both a seeker and hiring manager, relative to how it looked 1-2 years ago. Opportunities are becoming more scarce and candidates I'm interviewing are better qualified. Take it FWIW.

As one who deals with the automotive and manufacturing industry, this is normally the time of year when things slow down. Take it FWIW. Look for an increase to occur about late January or early February. All projections I'm seeing and hearing are calling for another great year in 2020.

I personally believe that if a deal is made with China, it could be an even better year. And here's an interesting article about what's going to be out there.

https://www.adeccousa.com/employers/resources/skilled-trades-in-demand/

 

[70boiler]

Trumps ego with PanPacific deal?

In the end, I was not aware any Presidential candidate from either party supported that deal. And I am talking not the final 3 but more like the final 6 candidates back in primaries.

.
Yes, I recognize the even Hillary was against it after she was for it, as well.
Nonetheless, as NYT reported at the time

Some Republicans agreed (that withdrawal was a poor choice), but only a few would publicly challenge the president. Senator John McCain of Arizona called the decision “a serious mistake” that would hurt America. “It will send a troubling signal of American disengagement in the Asia-Pacific region at a time we can least afford it."​

 

[TwinDegrees2]

So then we can call it like this: a huge difference of opinion. Because I THINK Pence is also a garbage human who would love nothing more than to have me wiped from the earth because I'm not straight. Obviously you and I will NEVER agree on him.

I've also seen plenty of Candace Owens speeches and Twitter rants to, again IN MY OPINION, know that she could never successfully be in charge.

It's very clear you and I have night and day views on things. Again, that will never change.

And LOL at your last sentence. I just can't with something like that coming from you of all people.

I wlll say this...Mike Pence would treat you no differently than he does me. That my friend is fact. He may believe differently based on his biblical beliefs, but he will not discriminate because of that. Again, that is fact.

 

[doubleyous]

Why do you hate conservative women of color?
First it was Nikki Haley, now Candace Owens? Are you sweating?

HATE......conserv. women of color ??
Why??
Are you back on that " Democrats' worst nightmare" scenario for 2024, with Haley, again ??
Now, BOTH you and I and others here like and respect Gov. Haley and Sec'y C. Rice.....but the 2024 GOP will probably closely resemble what it does today: A party that does not elevate women and minorities to positions of candidacies with high profiles.
Just returning your party to one which values personal character and integrity, post-Trump, will be a great rebound.

 

[PurdueFan1]

I wlll say this...Mike Pence would treat you no differently than he does me. That my friend is fact. He may believe differently based on his biblical beliefs, but he will not discriminate because of that. Again, that is fact.

Your attempt to prop Pence up as some upstanding person to me is unnecessary. Neither you nor anyone else will ever change my mind on him. Ever. So save your keystrokes for something else.

 

[70boiler]

I wlll say this...Mike Pence would treat you no differently than he does me. That my friend is fact. He may believe differently based on his biblical beliefs, but he will not discriminate because of that. Again, that is fact.

You may or may not be correct, but that is clearly opinion not fact.
EDIT... there is an interesting read from The Hill concerning the public's limited ability to distinguish

 

[tjreese]

So to put some context around Candace here....just today she tweeted out that ' one day, Greta Thunberg will realize that she's a victim of child abuse, not climate change. I genuinely find the video of her circulating to be sad. The Left is stooping to new lows with this blatant example of child exploitation'.

Okay.....so this is someone you want in charge? Bullying a 16 year old because she is worried about the environment? Claiming the left is 'exploiting' her? That's presidential material? (Wait, don't answer....because the president we have now does the same thing). Yes, punching down against someone who cares about the environment to own the libs. SIGN ME THE EFF UP. How is that kind of talk excusable?

You know, if that's Candace's assertion, then the same could be said about her as well: the right is using Candace as a pawn of the right. A POC of color easily swayed and trotted out as a representative of an entire race. See how awful that sounds?

Hard stop with her. She's vile.

It appears your view is based upon some kind of universal agreement that we really are in a climate crisis and that just isn't true...not that it couldn't b e true, just that there are obvious violations and questions not addressed that offer legitimate debate. Once you acknowledge that or open your mind to a terrified child without any relevant understanding of any modeling it is not a wide chasm to understand that someone or some environment has terrified this little girl for no reason, but she lacks the relevant knowledge in the appropriate domain to make a higher level thought ...and since she is useful..she is being used.

However, if I too was 100% sold that we are in dire straits relative to the climate I would just understand her position..like you do apparently and see no issue. So, you see your position is biased since you believe what you believe not considering that you could be wrong. If she were crying because ghosts came out when her lights in her bedroom went out and proved the ghosts went away when the lights were turned on and never wanted darkness...you might find that sad and try to calm her fears...so you see your internal bias into believing that you have sufficient understanding of modeling to have an informed opinion (we are not talking about linking one site after another, but previous understandings of things that are important in making any predictions whatever the are).

yes, people can contend that Candace is being used since she is black. I personally think her beliefs were her own making and it is not as though there has not been opposition to her thoughts ground into those people either.

This is another example where I wish I had a good OCR where I could present some interesting studies Thomas Sowell has on races, poverty and "thinking". Anyhow, she is a voice that was not heard by many for many years.

I can recall sitting in a house in Columbus,IN back in the 70s discussing or rather listening to two others talking about quota's in hiring and this personnel director for Cummins said "We are not going to hire a person because he is black. We are going to search out qualified blacks and hire them as they are deserving." May not seem profound now, but back then MANY companies just went for quotas with the point being that not having support in a certain demographic may still be the right thing to do. His name was Ulric Haynes if you care to search.

 

[PurdueFan1]

It appears your view is based upon some kind of universal agreement that we really are in a climate crisis and that just isn't true...not that it couldn't b e true, just that there are obvious violations and questions not addressed that offer legitimate debate. Once you acknowledge that or open your mind to a terrified child without any relevant understanding of any modeling it is not a wide chasm to understand that someone or some environment has terrified this little girl for no reason, but she lacks the relevant knowledge in the appropriate domain to make a higher level thought ...and since she is useful..she is being used.

However, if I too was 100% sold that we are in dire straits relative to the climate I would just understand her position..like you do apparently and see no issue. So, you see your position is biased since you believe what you believe not considering that you could be wrong. If she were crying because ghosts came out when her lights in her bedroom went out and proved the ghosts went away when the lights were turned on and never wanted darkness...you might find that sad and try to calm her fears...so you see your internal bias into believing that you have sufficient understanding of modeling to have an informed opinion (we are not talking about linking one site after another, but previous understandings of things that are important in making any predictions whatever the are).

yes, people can contend that Candace is being used since she is black. I personally think her beliefs were her own making and it is not as though there has not been opposition to her thoughts ground into those people either.

This is another example where I wish I had a good OCR where I could present some interesting studies Thomas Sowell has on races, poverty and "thinking". Anyhow, she is a voice that was not heard by many for many years.

I can recall sitting in a house in Columbus,IN back in the mid/late 70s discussing or rather listening to two others talking about quota's in hiring and this personnel director for Cummins said "We are not going to hire a person because he is black. We are going to search out qualified blacks and hire them as they are deserving." May not seem profound now, but back then MANY companies just went for quotas with the point being that not having support in a certain demographic may still be the right thing to do. His name was Ulric Haynes if you care to search.

I stopped after your first sentence. Science says otherwise. I'll go with that instead of someone like Candace Owens punching down. But thanks anyway.

 

[bonefish1]

Your attempt to prop Pence up as some upstanding person to me is unnecessary. Neither you nor anyone else will ever change my mind on him. Ever. So save your keystrokes for something else.

So much for tolerance......Pence may not approve or agree with your lifestyle, but that’s his personal choice. Just like you don’t agree with many things conservatives do.

 

[PurdueFan1]

So much for tolerance......Pence may not approve or agree with your lifestyle, but that’s his personal choice. Just like you don’t agree with many things conservatives do.

Why should I tolerate someone who would be fine if I wasn't here?

That has nothing to do with tolerating anything. Again, your inability to look at anything that doesn't fit into your straight white bubble really disqualifies any type of argument in good faith you may think you're having.

Pence doesn't like gay people, and I don't like him. I in no way need to associate with anyone who feels that way about me. That isn't about tolerance.

 

[PurdueFan1]

So much for tolerance......Pence may not approve or agree with your lifestyle, but that’s his personal choice. Just like you don’t agree with many things conservatives do.

Also, it's not a lifestyle. JFC.

 

[tjreese]

I stopped after your first sentence. Science says otherwise. I'll go with that instead of someone like Candace Owens punching down. But thanks anyway.

science does NOT say that..science suggest that for study. You are showing a lack of understanding of modeling. No way will I say it does not exist...no way will I say it exists. All through this country policies have been made on feelings absent real study and some for the money

You may have the right opinion...I can't say you are wrong, but to suggest that "Science" proves something tells me you don't understand...and you wouldn't be the first. You see I have more background into actually working with regression and predictors and admit it may be real and you don't have that background and can't consider you could be wrong. How do we get to the point that you say science says it is true and yet, I'm pretty confident that if we went down some modeling understanding, you might be lacking? AGain, this does't mean you are wrong...nor does it mean you are right.

Why would I want to hold thoughts on something in opposition to some "TRUTH"? What would I gain by knowing it was true and still having questions? I wouldn't . Why would I want to allow the destruction as stated to exist? You have an opinion...I acknowledge that and stated you could be correct in your opinion and yet somehow you don't believe that you could be wrong?

So the issue is again what appears an inability to understand that people that don't hold the opinion might see that little girl terrified in a different light. Once you understand that, then you might understand why some see her being used. You don't have to agree, but you shoudl understand.

 

[PurdueFan1]

science does NOT say that..science suggest that for study. You are showing a lack of understanding of modeling. No way will I say it does not exist...no way will I say it exists. All through this country policies have been made on feelings absent real study and some for the money

You may have the right opinion...I can't say you are wrong, but to suggest that "Science" proves something tells me you don't understand...and you wouldn't be the first. You see I have more background into actually working with regression and predictors and admit it may be real and you don't have that background and can't consider you could be wrong. How do we get to the point that you say science says it is true and yet, I'm pretty confident that if we went down some modeling understanding, you might be lacking? AGain, this does't mean you are wrong...nor does it mean you are right.

Why would I want to hold thoughts on something in opposition to some "TRUTH"? What would I gain by knowing it was true and still having questions? I wouldn't . Why would I want to allow the destruction as stated to exist? You have an opinion...I acknowledge that and stated you could be correct in your opinion and yet somehow you don't believe that you could be wrong?

So the issue is again what appears an inability to understand that people that don't hold the opinion might see that little girl terrified in a different light. Once you understand that, then you might understand why some see her being used. You don't have to agree, but you shoudl understand.

Fine, I give. All hail Candace Owens for bashing a 16 year old girl.