1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: Today at 06:50:47 PM »

Just stop. It's easy to find pictures of varying heights, in various conditions. Photographs with unknown conditions are not a measurement tool.

Here is Trump towering over Mohamed Ali who is 6'3".





Trump with George Foreman who is 6'4"

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: Today at 05:28:24 PM »

BREAKING NEWS TRUMP GROWS IN HEIGHT OVER THE SPAN OF A FEW MINUTES

Trump is supposed to be 6'3", yet is shorter than Vance who is 6'2".

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/us/national/politics/2025/02/09/vance-musk-trump-courts-doge

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: Today at 04:01:20 PM »

Nice pivot, I see that the new leftist talking point has been deployed. It is fascinating how the left fixates on Trump's height, as if that is relevant at all to the unprecedented political upheaval and mass demolishment of liberalism occuring. While he's dismantling their cherished DEI initiatives, cutting budgets for their favorite projects, and sending leftist bureaucrats packing, they want to debate how tall he is. Obsessing over the ruler while ignoring the wrecking ball. But hey, as their ideological empire crumbles, at least they'll have an exact measurement of the wrecking ball operator.

Anyway, this argument based on selective pictures isn't really that convincing, considering that the first few results on image search shows versions where they are more similarly statured. Unlike the above, Trump's eye level is not at mouth level in these images:

https://www.govexec.com/management/2024/07/heres-now-trumps-new-vice-presidential-pick-stacks-federal-workforce-issues/398056/



https://www.cbtnews.com/trumps-white-house-return-signals-major-shift-in-ev-policy-trade-and-economic-direction/



https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/jd-vance-britain-islamist-state-angela-rayner-trump-vp-t2jd237f8



https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/15/arts/jd-vance-trump-hollywood.html

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 13, 2025, 06:01:39 PM »

You are not a mod here so you don't get to tell me what to post or what not to.
The video is relevant to this thread. And of course I looked at it. To say I haven't is an incorrect accusation and ironic from someone who often posts cherry picked quotes from articles which actually say the exact opposite of what the cherry picked quote implies.

I have repeatedly pointed out that your definition of cherry picking includes things like "Yes, he says that the three body problem has issues... but we see on this other page in his book that he thinks that the earth is a sphere!! Cherry picking!!!"

These are retart arguments that a child would come up with, and it is actually you who is cherry picking something and refusing to address the actual argument being discussed. I really wish you would just follow through with your threat of boredom and leave this forum. There are these things called books, where you can learn about subjects without having to interact with people. You can work on your intellectual and emotional development on your own without having to continually embarrass yourself publicly.

An interesting and somewhat baffling response given that this exchange started with a video which juxtaposes one of the lies with the proof that it's a lie. Of course you see not just evidence of it but absolute proof of it. Your response is interesting. You have a cult leader who you believe to be infallible and truthful. You see a video which clearly demonstrates he lies. What do you do with that contradiction? An honest response would be to change your views on the fallibility and honesty of the cult leader. It is interesting that your response is to try and reconcile the lie with the proof that it's a lie by pretending that words don't mean what you know they mean.

Again, the problem here is completely on your part. There are different ways to interpret statements, and you consistency take the most disingenuous and hack partisan approach, from the lowbrow leftist websites you are subscribed to. What you post is mostly trash from the scummiest journalists in media.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 13, 2025, 05:16:12 PM »

I wonder how much the tariffs will affect the price of MAGA merch.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tg8PQzgV4ls?feature=share

The fact that this store even exists owns the libs. I'm not sure why you want to bring it up and remind us that Trump is populist king.

What kind of message is the MAGA leadership sending to their loyal sheeple when their patriotic merch is made in China?  Why doesn't Trump insist that ALL MAGA merch be made in the USA?  To Trump, patriotism is little more than a marketing scam.

Since you argue that more purity in US manufacturing is needed, I see that you agree with Trump in his stance that manufacturing needs to return to the USA. The way the video is presented shows that some items such as basic caps and shirts say Made in USA, but other items such as bomber jackets and mugs and golf hats say made in other countries. This is an accurate representation that some manufacturing exists, and represents a work in progress.

Trump says that there is a lack of manufacturing in the USA, and that this needs to change. I am happy that you looked at this video and agree with him.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 13, 2025, 04:23:37 PM »

I wonder how much the tariffs will affect the price of MAGA merch.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tg8PQzgV4ls?feature=share

The fact that this store even exists owns the libs. I'm not sure why you want to bring it up and remind us that Trump is populist king. Where is the Joe Biden storefront, or the Kamala or Obama store? Do you have the addresses for those? Outside of online gift shops, no commercial physical stores exist for them, or existed even when they were in office.

Considering that overseas goods are often sold for 10-30x the wholesale price, it is possible that even the current 124% tariff on China would barely have an affect on price, or no effect depending on the greed of the intermediary companies. Trump has made a point that some of his items are made overseas by necessity and lack of US manufacturing presence. Increasing amounts of tariffs are the remedy for this. With new factories in the US and modernized automation, it's also possible that a product could be built for cheaper than what traditional Chinese sweatshops could produce, stamping them out for nothing. Electricity and mechanical maintenance on industrial machinery is currently cheaper than overseas manual labor.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 12, 2025, 10:12:44 PM »

"The algorithm" spat it out this morning and I thought it was interesting.

Please stop that. You are continually posting articles and content which you have barely even looked at.

All politicians lie of course, but Trump lies in an interesting way. Boris Johnson is similar in this regard. Him and Trump both lie like a young child does.

I don't see any evidence of this. In the case of Boris Johnson, when we last discussed him in this thread we saw that lies were being made about him. Pete S was sharing a media claim that Johnson hid from reporters in a refrigerator. When we reviewed this, it turned out that he was supposed to go into that warehouse for a state visit, and then came out to do a scheduled interview with reporters. The allegations of running from reporters was from a outlet upset that he walked past them as they were shouting questions for an unscheduled interview. You participated in this conversation and were embarrassed pretty thoroughly.

Based on this and a similar series of fails, I can only conclude that there is very little effort here in distinguishing fact from fiction. You are in no place to make statements on which politician you think is lying.

Before you post and argue anything you need to review it critically as if you were your own opponent. I don't see that this is being done.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 12, 2025, 10:02:35 PM »

Oh and DOGE has tried for reality.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-drastically-drops-doge-112308234.html?guccounter=1

From $2 Trillion to $150 Billion.

From this article:

In a cabinet meeting on Thursday, Musk told Trump the group expected to slash $150 billion from the federal budget over the fiscal year, which runs from the beginning of October 2025 to the end of September 2026.

“I’m excited to announce that we anticipate savings in ’26 from reduction of waste and fraud by $150 billion,” Musk told Trump in the meeting. The world's richest man said these cuts "will actually result in better services for the American people."

The article goes on to review the DOGE website, which states and that an estimated $150 billion has been saved so far:

According to DOGE's website, which tracks canceled contracts, grants, and leases and publicly displays a sample, the team has already saved an estimated $150 billion. It's unclear if Musk meant to say the $150 billion was the final goal or just what the team had already found.

Regarding that last sentence, maybe they should have applied some journalistic integrity and cleared up that important piece of information before writing this article, because "we anticipate savings" could mean either 'so far' or 'for the year'. Since the website states the same $150 billion number as the amount which has been already saved, it casts doubt on the allegation that this number is the anticipated savings for the entire year.

Why does the author title the article that the goal was dropped to $150 billion, based on something the author admits that they are unclear about? The above statement says that DOGE has "already saved" $150 billion, but the author of the article doesn't know if $150 billion is the final goal. What kind of writing is this?

The article continues:

The White House did not immediately respond to Fortune's request for comment, however, an official told the New York Times the $1 trillion figure was still "the goal."

Okay, so if the goal is $1 trillion, how could $150 billion be the goal? Why does the the author think that they can interview officials and get a number, but still put forward a number they are unclear about in the article headline as fact?

This article is poorly written and contradicts itself from one sentence to the next. This is the sort of writing that would get a failing grade in middle school. Oddly, this whole article is based on "I thought a thing" while proceeding to present several pieces of evidence that the thing they thought is wrong.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 11, 2025, 06:08:13 PM »

We really are living in the stupidest timeline

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/V8_8xmDlM6A

Why are you posting this? This is from almost a year ago. But I agree with your statement, however. That we are living in the stupidest timeline is evident by a profound lack of comprehension skills employed when posting videos like this.

For example, in this video you posted he says that he didn't say lock her up, as in he did not originate the idea of lock her up. The crowd said it, and he says "lock her up is right" or, when responding to the crowd, "they should lock her up". He is obviously responding to the crowd in those video clip statements.

It wasn't his idea, which is a distinct difference. "I didn't say it" could mean several things here. You want it to mean universally, but Trump's use of it in the interview as support for why he didn't prosecute Hillary shows that he is saying that the idea did not originate with him. Had the idea originated with him, Trump is saying that he would have been more motivated to prosecute Hillary Clinton. A keen use of listening comprehension skills would have detected and understood which use of the phrase is correct.

As another example, you posted this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTwNUl-v57s

lol

Had reasonable comprehension skills been applied to this one would see that the person being interviewed is saying that he approves of tariffs, and that tariffs are a good strategy. His disagreements are about the exact particulars of the tariffs. This opposes the narrative you guys have been arguing that America imposing tariffs on its trading partners is bad in general. You guys did not nitpick about what is a better tarrif percentage to enact or which country is better than others to tariff.

It is almost as if you have been reactively posting videos and articles which align with you politically without critically going through the content at all.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 09, 2025, 10:28:58 PM »

It sounds like Trump is winning to me.

https://nypost.com/2025/04/09/us-news/trump-brags-countries-are-calling-us-up-kissing-my-ass-over-tariffs/

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 09, 2025, 09:22:46 PM »

Didn't you just say how making it lower was good?

Also, this is because he just paused almost all the tariffs.  Why?  If this was the best solutions why stop it when it barely started?

It doesn't really matter to me if the multinationals sink, but it apparently matters a lot to the liberals. Which is weird, because over the few years the liberals have been preaching about the evils of big business, what with "occupy wall street" and "eat the rich".

Trump paused the tariffs for the 75 countries who wanted to negotiate. This is something which you leftists did not account for in all of your bawwing. Trump holds the cards, and ultimate control over the economy. After the pause is finished, it will be more difficult to cause a stock market panic, and the world will simply ease into the tarrif paradigm.

Laughably, leftists were predicting a US Recession, and have now rescinded their predictions.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/goldman-calls-us-recession-1257pm-73-minutes-later-rescinds-recession-call

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 09, 2025, 06:10:06 PM »

You guys just need to stop. Stocks increased tremendously today. The Dow surged by 2000 points for biggest rally in 5 years, despite Trump increasing the tariffs on one of America's biggest trading partners, China, from 104% to 125%.

https://tradytics.com/overall-market

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes

« on: April 09, 2025, 04:59:19 PM »

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 09, 2025, 03:43:31 AM »

Yes. So?
Are you doing an appeal to authority here? They're his economic advisors so they're very very clever and know what they're doing, is that it? I notice you do that sort of thing on here at times but you do it very selectively.

What? You were just asking for an authority behind the equation, claiming that Trump doesn't know what he is doing. The authority you asked for was provided. It's the Council of Economic Advisers. This overshadows your stand up math comedian, and pretty much any other source posted.

Yes, his advisors are economists. But I looked up that dude you posted the video of. His economic ideas are not widely accepted.

Irrelevant. While Peter Navarro is tangentially involved, he isn't on the Council of Economic Advisers.

Lots of other economists are queuing up to say how bone-headed these tariffs are.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/information-resources/ - I see a list of fourteen PhDs on the Council. Aside from the fact that they were specifically asked to be the country's economic advisors because they were the best in the country, we simply have a group of experts who spent time working on this. Have you named a group of experts who spent time together analyzing this in an organized manner? No. You have a disorganized collection of articles from individuals.

There's no strategy behind this - or, rather, it's just massively flawed and far too simplistic.

Wrong. This Tariff strategy was visualized years ago, and forms the basis of Project 2025 by the Heritage Foundation. This article shows that everything has been blueprinted by economists, from the reciprocal tariffs, to the specific countries targeted with higher tariffs. Project 2025 also calls for government downsizing and immigration enforcement, which we have already seen put into motion. Contrary to your uninformed statements, there is a plan for all of this.

One example I heard talked about was Lesotho. They're a very poor country in Africa so consequently import very little from the US because they can't afford to. But they have diamond mines so they export a lot of diamonds to the US. They've been hit with a massive tariff because of the big difference between imports an exports. But that doesn't make any sense. Very few diamonds are produced in the US so you have to import them. So all this tariff means is prices of diamonds will go up for US citizens. Or you'll just import them less from Lesotho and more from other African countries. So that will push Lesotho further in to poverty.

I am not moved by your argument at all. First of all, you are basically rooting for horrible mining conditions and sweatshops. Secondly, your strategy of giving diamond hucksters equal or preferential treatment for scamming us sounds pretty stupid to me. Diamonds are a scam and are virtually worthless. If people buy less of them, they are better off for it.

French wine is pretty much regular wine that is flipped as a luxury brand and scammed to the public as superior. Brands like Gucci and Prada are scamming people to the tune of millions of dollars. None of those industries deserve to be treated fairly for taking advantage of people through psychology and taking their money.

To a lesser extent, many of the general products shipped from overseas are pretty much low value, and sold for 10-30x the price of wholesale. The tarrifs apply the price of wholesale, not the price of retail. The tarrifs can increase to 500% and the companies will still profit. So far Trump has imposed relatively small tarrifs, and the reaction of crocodile tears outsizes the reality of the situation. This is objectively insignificant, but we have to listen to your politically-motivated rants against it. All of this amounts to outrage spam from people who are either ignorant or deceitful.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 08, 2025, 05:55:48 PM »

It's a Matt Parker StandUpMaths video I posted about the equation pointing out what nonsense it is and how little sense it makes to base any policy based on it.

I gave you the name of the organization it came from, the Council of Economic Advisors. This is an Executive Branch organization which advises the President of the United States on economic policy.

Considering this, why would you keep going back to the standup math comedian you posted? This is barely one step up from referencing the commentary you see on Saturday morning cartoons. Seriously, this is not an appropriate way to gain knowledge. You have previously posted standup comedians and leftist comedy websites as your sources of information. You really need to reevaluate who and where you are getting your knowledge from. It doesn't really matter what your video says because it is an unqualified and ridiculous source.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 08, 2025, 04:19:02 AM »

The issue is very little analysis has gone into this, they've just used a blanket formula and used that to come up with some numbers. And Trump is doing it unilaterally without any of the checks and balances that should be in place in a functioning democracy.

Instead they've basically used a fucking Excel formula. This is not a serious policy from a serious politician. It's an attention grabbing move from a reality TV show star who craves attention because he didn't get enough affection from his daddy.

What in the world? Why do your arguments sound like something a eleven year old came up with?

Hey little British lad, Trump and the White House do have economists working for them. Here is senior trade advisor Peter Novoro, a Harvard PhD, explaining the strategy behind the tariffs. At 3:40 Peter Novoro explains that the equation comes from the Council of Economic Advisors.

This isn't Trump unilaterally doing anything. There are organizations behind him. Republicans are half of the country, with their own conservative experts, and not your allegations of a "cult". You have no idea what you are talking about. Your arguments are childish and wrong. You, or whatever leftist news source you are repeating your information from, are just super sad because your side is losing politically world wide. I will ask that you kindly stop baawing your uninformed rants and leftist cries of sorrow all over this thread. If you want to cry about it, I would prefer that you do it at some other website which I don't visit.

17

Flat Earth Investigations / Physicist Brian Cox on Universal Acceleration

« on: April 06, 2025, 10:00:22 PM »

I found a video of Brian Cox discussing the Flat Earth Society. He says that he doesn't believe in FE, but says that one of the things TFES got right is that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards. See this two minute segment from about 1:07:25 to 1:09:25:



Brian Cox describes the idea of the Earth's surface  accelerating upward as "bang on" and "actually right", and that in RE it is explained by spacetime curvature. What's particularly revealing is how Round Earth proponents must resort to abstract metaphysical concepts like "spacetime curvature" to explain what the Flat Earth model explains directly and intuitively.

I note that one thing that the Flat Earth has going for it is that it isn't perpetually exploding apart from itself. It is rising upwards, just as the experiments show. There are a plethora of Equivalence Principle experiments which directly suggest that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards. This doesn't work in RE, so space curvature is invoked. The Round Earth Theory weirdly explains the results of these experiments with metaphysics which invoke unseen mechanics from a hidden realm of existence. In RET the round earth is apparently exploding outwards, but this effect is oddly only manifested locally and in laboratory experiments.

Rather than acknowledging the upward acceleration of the earth's surface from direct experiment, mainstream science creates increasingly abstract mathematical models to preserve their spherical earth paradigm. When this topic has been discussed in the past, instead of RE proponents justifying their absurd theory with direct evidence for this, we see indirect evidence and pivots to wanting to talk about why they think FE is wrong. This deflection reveals the fragility of their position when core assumptions are questioned. I strongly predict that the same will occur in this thread.

Cox's acknowledgment represents a rare moment of honesty from the scientific establishment about the validity of a central aspect of the Flat Earth Society's cosmology.

18

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Does light naturally travel in curved paths?

« on: April 06, 2025, 03:20:02 AM »

Of course photos of the globe earth from space are reproducible.  That you personally don’t have the resources to reproduce them yourself does not mean that those who do have the resources can’t reproduce them.

The issue isn’t whether someone, somewhere, with the right resources could reproduce those photos, it's that you're submitting them as reproducible evidence to a group that can't verify them. In any rigorous evaluation, if your peer reviewers or replicators lack the means to independently recreate your findings, your work gets stamped "unreproducible."

That's the standard: replicability isn’t about theoretical potential; it's about practical access for those assessing it. You don't get a passing grade because NASA might have a rocket lying around. Your submission fails because the reviewers can't test it themselves. And to be real, you haven't replicated it either, so you're asking for trust, not proof. The reasons for the resource gap might be an interesting footnote, but it doesn’t change anything. Unreproducible is unreproducible. End of.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 06, 2025, 01:37:41 AM »

I am not sure what the point of all this whining is. Trump is implementing the tariffs I voted for.

So your take is:

Why are you whining that we have a moron in charge who is bolloxing everything up? I voted for the moron! I wanted a moron in charge!

Interesting position.

This is a funny statement, considering that your Prime Minister is bending the knee to Trump and is agreeing that globalization has failed.

https://twitter.com/LeadingReport/status/1908669880292827179

Meanwhile, the French leader has proposed to stop investments into the United States, to the reaction of rejection by business leaders.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/04/05/out-of-the-question-french-business-leaders-reject-macrons-call-to-stop-investments-in-united-states/



It seems to me that you are just going to bend over and take this.

20

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Does light naturally travel in curved paths?

« on: April 06, 2025, 01:04:37 AM »

It has been claimed many times. I dealt with that above. In every claim I've seen the claimant made a mistake - I've listed some of the mistakes I've seen made above.

You should correct yourself here. The people you are talking about actually went out and conducted observations and experiments. You merely tried to explain it away, while doing nothing further and providing no contradicting experiments of your own to settle the matter for us. The experiments are easy, yet you have consistently refused to even look.

Cool. So post some examples and I'll have a look.
There are significantly more than 500 videos and photos of the globe earth from space.

The examples are readily available, and reproducible. Your "photos of the globe earth from space" claim is not reproducible.

My observation does not need to be videotaped

I'm somewhat surprised that in all the times you made this observation you didn't once think to take a photo or document it in enough detail that the claim can be examined.

Not required. Your disbelief is your own problem. The claim itself is evidence. Read a thesis sometime which describe conducted experiments and the level of photographic evidence given for the results claimed. The level of evidence I provided is consistent with the level of evidence for a plethora of science which has been conducted. You need to learn more. Claims are evidence. This is also why people have been sentenced to imprisonment based on the word of a single witness alone.