Random Politics & Religion #03

*** died.

Getting warmer.

An opinion based on strong correlation.

The polls consistently bear out that idea:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

It's worth noting though, that most of a Presidential campaign is less about building up positives and more about limiting negatives. People don't have to love you, they just have to hate you less than your opponent. Kasich has flown well under the radar for most of this, so no one's really bothered to go after him the way they have the others. We don't really know how he'd hold up in a general campaign without Cruz and Trump making him look like a moderate.

I mean, in that regard, both Trump and Clinton have been very impressive; Trump says and does ridiculous crap nonstop and it doesn't affect him. Clinton's been getting barraged in the national spotlight for a quarter of a century and is still ticking.

When there is a lack of data, observational judgment is all I can rely on. Correlation may not be causation, and the bias in media coverage unfortunately has an influence on how we perceive the world, but my perception is not based on nothing. Left-leaning cities and/or demographics are often at the hearts of these riots. And when you pull claims like this:
I have to respond like this:

Learn the difference between correlation and causation. There is a lot of correlation. Causation is what can't be proven at this point and the word that you're looking for.

How can you claim to be somewhat less biased than others here then in the next breath blame one side for the majority of it?

Didn't we have a discussion earlier in this very incarnation of the thread about not blaming the whole group for the actions of some?

There is no correlation here because you have no idea about who the people really are... You see protestors v people at the rally then automatically put a d or an r in front where you think applicable... For all you know it could be trump supporters starting the problems to shine a bad light on the others... There could be a mix of d & r protesting as he doesn't really make all pubs happy...

Violence is stupid... There should be no need for it at a rally and it doesn't do anything good for your cause. Whoever was involved in that part of it is at fault. Making this about something you have no grounds or basis for is ludicrous though. And hey where were you when a handful of trump supporters beat the ***out that protestor who was then dragged out by the cops? Oh yeah they were just upstanding citizens defending their rights from that thug! That one guy even talked about having to kill some people...

^

Please provide the data supporting the above.

C'mon Flav, it's not a stretch to assume they people protesting (and rioting) at a Trump rally aren't Trump supporters. They're obviously there as an expression of their political ideology. One doesn't protest a political event because they agree with it, and one doesn't show up to riot a political rally when they're upset their sports team lost.

Secretary of State, John Kerry has condemned Syrian rebels for bombing a hospital. Don't fret though. He is still going to continue funding and arming them.

"Hey guys, let's not bomb anymore civilians k? We don't want John Kerry condemning us again"

There are plenty of republicans that don't agree with trump and find him to be a big problem... Look at the party itself... They're literally trying to sabotage his run... So yeah...

I had no idea the Secretary of State was capable of arming and funding anyone, hmm..oh well.

Ok, you put your stock in that, the rest of us will be over here not patting down non-muslim 80 year old grandmothers at the airport security checkpoint.

It's not a secret that we are funding the rebels. He has propped up this civil war for years. It would be over now, but for Obama's involvement. He cannot figure out how to create economic growth, but he is an expert on creating refugees.

I cannot believe they haven't given Obama another Nobel Peace Prize.

If you have any actual facts that point to Syrian rebels carrying out the attack on the hospital in Aleppo as opposed to say, Assad or ISIS, feel free to share them. Otherwise you are just spreading misinformation to fit your narrative.

Well I mean we attacked a hospital in Afghanistan which was run by Doctors Without Borders and pretty much said oh my bad we punched in the wrong coordinates... My bad!

What are you looking for them to do in this case? What do you even think their options are?

Is it as ridiculous as two different alphabet soup government agencies arming two different groups that ended up fighting each other?

And your bias shines brighter... At least don't try to hide it like you're employing some kind of actual logic...

I will summarize Vic's post.

"NUH-UH!"

Ok so you are lying again. You couldn't even provide a link of Kerry's alleged condemnation of Syrian rebels, (because it didnt happen) much less any evidence that they were involved.

Do you think you, or anyone really is without bias or prejudice?

How do you know the sky is blue?

So your counter is that you are correct because everyone has some level of bias? What point are you trying to make here?

thd sky isn't inherently blue...