No Excuses

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by No Excuses

  1. The voters still rejected him and his party at historic levels despite a strong economy. A dislike for Trump, the person, is baked into a sizeable majority of the public. His only path to re-election is performing well with a demographic that is over represented in our politics: low education white voters.
  2. “Don’t want to do it politically” is such a pathetic indictment of Democrats if they choose to go down this route and not impeach. I am not sure I will vote for any of their candidates in 2020 if they back down on this. They will have utterly failed to be a counter to the worst person to hold office since Nixon. And unlike Nixon, Trump and the GOP will be well aware that no one will check their abuse of power.
  3. The Democrats dont have to convince the entire country but it’s utterly pathetic if they don’t even attempt to make a case to roughly 55% of the country that disapproves of this administration. Shame on them if they refuse to impeach. If there is a way to lose my vote in 2020, this is it.
  4. Dem establishment is full of pansies and has been playing defense against wolves for decades. As usual, I am expecting them to flub this. This would never happen if the Dem establishment was more AOC and less chicken **** boomer liberalism.
  5. Re Sarah Sanders: her being a pathological liar isn’t news. The only people who don’t object to her and this administrations relationship with the truth are the knuckleheads who’ve surrender their neocortex to Donald Trump. Trump and the Republican Party function with the assumption that their base is full of morons who will believe anything and time and time again they are proven right. Why change?
  6. It is. Muellers report is very clear that if their wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute, they would clearly state so (as they did for conspiracy). Nancy better start impeachment proceedings.
  7. Get them on record that they support a President who likely broke the law and who instead should be facing prosecution. Mueller’s report explicitly tells Congress that they are well within their right to proceed with impeachment hearings over what is in the report. There is no coming back if both chambers of Congress refuse to do their job. The public should decide if they are ok with the Republicans protecting an individual who deserves prosecution.
  8. **** the Democratic Party if they don’t seize this and hammer Trump until he’s out of office. This is a sitting President who committed multiple crimes and should be prosecuted. Grow a pair and do your jobs.
  9. Pee tape confirmation is the real Mueller report.
  10. Volume II of the report is basically a long list of crimes that Trump committed. The report explicitly states that if Trump hadn’t committed obstruction, it would have declared this. Mueller explains why he punted the issue to Congress. It was not Barr’s decision to make. Fire up the impeachment proceedings.
  11. The SC report pretty much summarizes in the end that Kusher, Don Jr and Manafort sought aid from the Kremlin but one of the reasons they can’t be charged is because they weren’t aware that this is a crime, so their intent wasn’t to commit violations of federal law. I am not a lawyer but that level of deterrence isn’t given to a lot of people who break federal law.
  12. William Barr is a stooge and Trump, after complaining almost daily that his DoJ AG must protect him, finally got someone to do that. We need the unredacted report and people from Mueller's team need to be testifying in open public hearing. I don't care for anything that involves Barr's intrusion. The public has a right to know exactly and fully what's inside of the report.
  13. Been thinking about this for a while. Should we still ban PED's in major sports? There have been rumors swirling around the NBA for a while that players are doping. It was in George Karl's autobiography, Derrick Rose pretty much admitted to this and other athletes like Rip Hamilton have also suggested this to be the case. Here's a quote from Karl's book: "More likely it’s for the newest, hard-to-detect blood boosters and PEDs they have in Europe. Unfortunately, drug testing always seems to be a couple steps behind drug hiding. Lance Armstrong never failed a drug test.” I personally have arrived at the view that performance enhancement drugs should be legalized, provided you have a certified doctor who is administering them. You can ban the back alley stuff, but I really don't think this should be frowned upon if you have medical professionals involved. If players are doing this anyways, why not legalize it, even the playing field, involve doctors and provide resources/information on safe practices and even invest in this kind of research? Some of my evolution on this comes from my own scientific experience, where I have recently seen a huge amount of progress/interest in capabilities related to enhancing physical and cognitive performance in healthy subjects, particularly extremely fit people (astronauts, etc). We are fundamentally entering a new era of personalized athletics soon that will enable humans to track their physiology at the molecular level and enhance it to improve performance. So why put the limits on what's possible in sports? I want to see athletes do cool **** and if a new generation of PED's enable that, great. Let's see it.
  14. No Excuses

    What do you Believe??? (Religion)

    It is not irrelevant because philosophers who have pondered this question much more than you and I don't really take "Because God" as a serious explanation for the problem of induction. The problem of induction in science has long been regarded as not a problem for actually doing science. Hume even said so when he posed the problem of induction: And there have been better attempts at either providing explanations or providing alternatives, such as Karl Popper's view that science is deductive. Now you can agree or disagree, but it attempts to solve the problem far better than coming up with a fantastical assumption, and then trying to label it as a prediction, which is what you are trying to do
  15. No Excuses

    What do you Believe??? (Religion)

    Just stop digging this hole for yourself. I know you aren't ignorant of this but I am going to link this here anyways: You aren't going to change the definition of burden of proof because it clashes with your arguments. This is completely absurd.
  16. No Excuses

    What do you Believe??? (Religion)

    You are playing with words here. There is a burden of proof necessary in science and p-values are one way to establish legitimacy for scientific claims. Everything from our legal system to our scientific method relies on a burden of proof, and further no one ever asks for irrefutable proof, but enough to establish a high probability that a claim is legitimate or not.
  17. No Excuses

    What do you Believe??? (Religion)

    I don't believe you actually believe this yourself, especially as a scientist. If I suggest that a teapot between Mars and Earth is orbiting the Sun, I can't duck behind this ridiculous assumption that a burden of proof for my claim doesn't exist because this isn't a problem of "basic math".'s_teapot
  18. No Excuses

    What do you Believe??? (Religion)

    This is quite the low bar. There is nothing particularly insightful about the existence of God that you can draw from being able to make predictions about the future based on past experience (i.e. natural laws remained uniform in my past experience and will thus continue to do so into my future). Multiple human cultures have come to believe this in some capacity, independent of each other, and with wildly different ideas about why this is the case. I don't know in which philosophical circles God is introduced as an answer to the Problem of Induction but it is beyond lazy and really not insightful. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy doesn't even cover this:
  19. No Excuses

    What do you Believe??? (Religion)

    What correct prediction are you making? That God is the answer to the problem of induction when it comes to uniformity of natural laws? That is not a prediction. It is an assumption that is not backed by anything but your personal beliefs.
  20. No Excuses

    What do you Believe??? (Religion)

    It fundamentally does not tell you anything, except assigning your gaps in knowledge to an unknown entity. An argument that weakens over time as our gaps in knowledge are filled isn’t logical or useful. That some of the early founders of the scientific method were religious has no bearing on the validity of their beliefs.
  21. No Excuses

    What do you Believe??? (Religion)

    A God of the Gaps argument isn’t very logical either.
  22. I don't have a link yet, but Breitbart just preemptively ran a counter-piece to a Washington Post story that is about to be released soon. The Washington Post article will allege that Roy Moore, noted homophobe, running as the Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama, assaulted teenage girls as young as 14, when he was in his 30's. Roy Moore is on record, denying these allegations to Breitbart. This is going to be a huge ****storm. Republicans will have to make a choice: defend Roy Moore or force him to step down and likely replace him with Luther Strange. It's going to pit the McConnell faction that favors Strange, against the Bannon faction, which favors Roy Moore. I have not linked to the Breitbart piece but if the mods ask, I will provide the link. The Washington Post story hasn't come out yet. The WP article is out:
  23. No Excuses

    Election 2020 The Non Presidential Edition

    This is the Republican agenda laid bare and in plain writing. Anyone expecting them to play fair in elections is a fool. They fear the growth of “population centers” and the increasing power of the vote for minorities. Rather than working to earn our votes, they want to take away our ability to do it. Abhorrent party, backed and voted into power by equally abhorrent people.
  24. Considering that white women are some of the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action, they would be wrong at every level to think it discriminates against them.
  25. No Excuses

    The Brexit Thread

    Discuss the impending **** storm.