Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "Dissecting Donald Trump (Pt. 1) | Scott Adams | POLITICS | Rubin Report" video.

  1. So ... let's assume for the moment that Scott is correct and Trump is just a genius. Then why does he nominate all these blistering incompetent idiots who just happen to have conflicts of interest? Why do we need a climate science denier as chief of NASA?
    74
  2. "Science denial. Yes, because science is all about static dogma." Great ... then let's continue having the "debate" about homeopathy then.
    5
  3. "he people who constantly go on about Trump playing 4-D chess and whatever are just borderline cultists who will support anything as long as it "triggers" liberals." Yeah... it certainly seems so. I'm not a "liberal" in the US sense. I'm not even a US citizens. I'm "liberal" in the European sense, but I care about facts. If Scott Adams did too, he would not just sit there and faint at the thought of the "genius" in the White House and brag about his ability to know how he operates. Then he would use his alleged "skills" to help actually decent people caring about facts to persuade those who were still blinded by Trump lies. If he really thinks that facts matters for outcome he should not just sit there drooling while the most fact free president in history ensures horrible outcomes.
    5
  4. +Fern Moore So basically you describe what a fascist dictator would do. Should we feel happy about that? I'm not disputing that there's a method to what Trump does. I'm disputing that it's not malicious.
    4
  5. Yeah ... just as the "debate" isn't about species, but about whether evolution made the species ... which it didn't. Same type of argument, - difference only in scientific theory rejected.
    3
  6. +No One Nahh... promoting incompetence is not reducing government. It' s preparing for fascism. If you actually wanted to reduce government, you'd just not staff it. That's what he has done with the state department. Unfortunately - that's also what you would do if you just wanted to hand it all to the Russian oligarchy.
    3
  7. +SilentAsShadow "Not 'all' evidence. Don't be a sheep. There's plenty to the contrary" Actually there's not. Been spending 8 years following the science closely and I've only seen utter BS from the denier camp.
    3
  8. There is a fair tax system. Tax people based on their use of natural opportunities. Thomas Paine figured this out. ... we're just the slow ones.
    3
  9. Why do you think we need to discuss whether Hillary lost? I'm not the one having problems with facts. She was a terrible candidate. Steven Crowder is a moron, but back to your question: Define "mistake" ... what is it you want me to give an example of?
    2
  10. +Zelousmarineinspace Just like creationsim =/= denying biology? Sure...
    2
  11. +mrhitisnumberone I appreciate your advice, but I happen to have checked the evidence and you are just wrong.
    2
  12. +Layon W. ... or it's just because Scott is a weasel worded Trump-fan chearing us all on to the bright new fact-free future. Thanks for the psycho-analysis. I prefer Sam Harris' reasoned based approach.
    2
  13. +Fern Moore "You asked why. I gave an answer. I did not apply any moral judgments" Fair enough. I don't spin ... I conclude.
    1
  14. +Donald Trump Parodies Given that the probability distribution for future scenarios has a long fat tail in the high end of relative low probability, but de-facto civilization-ending outcomes, that's simply just nonsense. NO economic strategy involves taking a 5% risk of ending civilization.
    1
  15. +luminicent Yeah... there's that idea that Trump play 4D-chess again and is not only doing what he does to enrich his friends. But sure... let USA be the one having lived much decadent on our common way to this disaster.
    1
  16. +TDK365 Oh.. .I don't know ... maybe NOT destroy the satellites used to monitor the development of the problem? They could come in handy for adaptation, but the GOP obviously thought they were a problem.
    1
  17. +Patrick Curtis Would you install a homeopath to run the Health and Human services?
    1
  18. Dear Anonymous coward.... Some of us prefer to live in a fact based world. That doesn't mean we haven't heard what Bannon says, or know that a lot of people thinks he's a genius ... it just mean we disagree. It shouldn't actually be a surprise to you that you find so many like that reading The Rubin Report... Dave actually started out declaring that it was all about "reason and logic". That went down hill since then, but some of us are still reading along.... once in a while.
    1
  19. +Chris Garfield "The debate isn’t really about climate change being real or being man-made it’s whether it will have catastrophic effects. That hasn’t and probably won’t be proven." You are practicing manufactured doubt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufactured_controversy Climate change is real. It's man made, - and it's dangerous. All 3 of those are as scientifically certain which science can be. Just as evolution is real, it's the origin of the species and humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. Wrt. both topics there are ideological motivated people vehemently denying it ... but (as Tyson says): The good thing about science is that it's true whether you believe in it or not.
    1
  20. +Kruger "Primarily because there isn't a single working model to predict climate change and its effects." There isn't a single working model to predict evolution either ... so maybe you've just misunderstood science? "Further the "consensus" on the topic is largely manufactured" BS "The discussion about climate change is hardly settled science and any attempt to assert otherwise - is ideologically motivated." ... and creationists say the exact same thing about the theory of evolution. And we have the exact same reasons to take them seriously.
    1
  21. Ad 1. Nonsense... Science has demonstrated that most of the warming in the last half century is due to humans. That's not the same as having a model capable of predicting the exact year the Arctic will be ice free.. In exactly the same way as science can demonstrate that species evolve, but can't predict to what exactly. Ad 2. Pure nonsense and lies. Ad 3. I know exactly what would convince me. In other words... what the proverbial "Rabbits in the precambrian" is. I bet you do not. Don't mistake lack of patience with nonsense for being angry.
    1
  22. +Kruger 1: Science does have a physical model for the climate. We can (and do) calculate changes and contributions from different factors. 2. You just through out bogus numbers without reference... There's nothing to respond to. 3. Yeah... I referenced the evolution debate, because climate science deniers behave exactly like creationists. " I would merely point out that the climate has been changing for millions upon millions of years" Which it's a totally bogus argument not even trying to reflect on the problem at hand. It's like trying to draw attention away from the problem with playing with matches in a dry forest, by saying "There has always been forest fires".
    1
  23. This just convinced me even more that Scott is a weasel ...
    1