Comments by "" (@GoatZilla) on "The Damage Report" channel.

  1.  @c.j.giordano2129  I don't larp as a psychologist, hence why I'm unaffected by your lightning bolts. You repeatedly dodged "facts and logic", instead claiming thinking about "considering pros and cons". So explain to me how exactly you are able to arrive at "pros and cons" without facts and logic. Right after you prove the efficacy of your psychological model by providing a prediction of how Trump is going to react to the coming events.
    1
  2.  @c.j.giordano2129  Can't have pros and cons and efficiency without logic and facts. You're just going to have to explain that one.
    1
  3.  @c.j.giordano2129  Again, you're buying into the character that NBC created and not the true reality. You have not done enough research into his background. For instance, in a recent phone call to GA, Trump wanted them to "find" 11,000 more votes because "they are shredding ballots in my opinion". The shredding of ballots would be a fact and not an "opinion", so why does he call it an opinion? It's as if he does not know the difference between facts and opinions. That's probably why he has gotten repeatedly steamrolled in court. Your short history of Trump leaves out the numerous times he got steamrolled in court, where facts and logic (kinda) matter. I also think we have a wide disparity in our concept of "facts and logic". I'm still maintaining that you cannot have pro's and con's without facts and logic. You can't chase efficiency without facts and logic. You haven't challenged this very basic assertion; you've merely appealed to Trump's fictional character arc. There are people who don't operate on facts and logic. As they say, if you don't know a guy, you are that guy.
    1
  4.  @c.j.giordano2129  Oh, I almost forgot to mention that Trump tried to sue the author of the book "Art of the Deal". You might want to research what Schwartz thinks of Trump now. Maybe round out that thorough research you've been doing. "In my opinion."
    1
  5.  @c.j.giordano2129  You mentioned the book, and now you're wondering why I am talking about the book? Also, did you not know about the court cases?
    1
  6.  @c.j.giordano2129  Actually I need to rewind this a little bit. If you are the one that cites a book, is it not fair game for me to bring up extra background regarding that book? Why are you asking me why I am talking about a book that you brought up? I don't understand how that logic works.
    1
  7. Feels good man
    1
  8. I say we let Trump back on Twitter; however the only tweets he is allowed to make are attacks on Ted Cruz.
    1
  9.  @thatguysson8241  I'm pretty sure it makes all the difference when governing a modern nation, fuckwit. Have you not noticed that congress is completely incapable of handling anything technically related?
    1
  10.  Angel Lynn  Two comments, because she gave an evasive meandering reply.
    1
  11. OK let's do the math here. They're going to have two dozen people at that dinner. The person that counts is Trump himself, not his two idiot sons. Dinner would likely last at most 2 hours. Evenly spread out, that would mean that you would be paying $500,000-$1,000,000 for maybe five minutes of conversation with Trump.
    1
  12. The scary thing is if he committed $500M of his own money on the campaign and it kept him out of jail... that would actuality be a good investment.
    1
  13.  @sandpiperr  He gave "his legacy" only one chance to say 'no'. Note the particular wording. If @ynot2847 wasn't a psychopath, he would have said, "My son could say no at any time and I would have respected it" instead of only giving him one chance to say 'no'. My guess is he gave his "legacy" one chance to say 'no', and that was before the money was committed. Once the money was committed, the kid had no choice after that.
    1
  14. lol, yep, he's going through some sort of crisis alright.
    1
  15.  @CausalityLoop  OK, I'm going to tactically make you the alt-right ambassador, meanwhile I'll continue to do my thing.
    1
  16.  @Jb.art1  Even in your best case scenario, for which there is no evidence, that isn't the proper way to handle it as a parent. There are proper ways to respond, and there are abusive ways to respond. There's no justification for the latter.
    1
  17.  @Jb.art1  Again I'm not actually seeing a justification for being abusive in your pile of words. You're just using ignorance as a defense. And while you claim that you don't know exactly what was said (second use of ignorance as a defense), that doesn't prevent you from plowing ahead and passing judgement anyways. I know your type isn't good with hypotheticals, but let's try anyways. Let's imagine it's your child, and instead of you, it's another adult, say a teacher, that tells your child, "This little ‘writing career’ that you’re doing? That shit is fucking over.” Does your same sarcastic excuse still apply? Is every teacher perfect and knows exactly what to say or do in every situation?
    1
  18.  @Jb.art1  So when you sarcastically say "Your children are so lucky to have a parent so perfect that always know what the write thing to say or do" , is that not a personal attack? Also you answered literally none of the questions or gave any justification other than ignorance.
    1
  19.  @Jb.art1  And I know you don't like the fact that I pegged you for the type that fails hypotheticals, but... you failed the hypothetical.
    1
  20.  @Jb.art1  Again, would it be OK for another adult to say that to a child? Say, a teacher who says it to your child. Does your enabling apologist routine still apply? And again, you claim ignorance as a defense and then immediately make the assumption that she "probably" didn't try to crush his dreams. You claim you don't know what happened but you plow forward again and automatically give the mother the benefit of the doubt.
    1
  21.  @Jb.art1  The old "no parent is perfect" argument. What does mindset have to do with anything, much less initial mindset? The mindset doesn't matter if damage is done because the damage is the same regardless. How does mindset excuse this behavior, and furthermore why are you constantly giving the mother the benefit of the doubt? Again, would you allow some other "well-meaning" adult say that to your own child?
    1
  22.  @Jb.art1  So you just allowed that to happen to your child. I guess you thought that other adult had an appropriate "mindset"? That sounds kind of messed up. Again, all of this is you giving the mother the benefit of the doubt in this case. Why is this? You keep projecting "mindset" and other things without evidence, and automatically weighing in to defend the mother with things like, "Wow! What did she tell him that every day?" That right there is sarcasm, and you are automatically taking the mother's side because "mindset". Why?
    1
  23.  @Jb.art1  Why was it "messed up" in your son's case, meanwhile it's the "no perfect parent" treatment for Tarantino?
    1
  24.  @Jb.art1  You seem to blame other people for “not reading” what you’re writing, but we’re reading it pretty closely. It sounds to me like you messed up your son's life pretty badly and have been rehearsing the "no perfect parent/instruction manual" spiel so much that you try to shoehorn it into inappropriate places. Your very first comment immediately reached for sarcasm ("Wow! What did she tell him that every day?"). You referred to the "no instruction manual" thing as sarcasm when it really wasn't -- it was figurative speech, not sarcasm. And then you sarcastically quipped again "wow! Your children are so lucky to have a parent so parent that always knows what the write [sic] thing to say or do..." If you don't understand the difference between sarcasm and figurative speech and don't even know when you are doing it yourself, you should avoid using either. This is precisely what Tarantino was talking about. “Remember there are consequences for your sarcastic tone about what’s meaningful to them." You are basically proving him exactly right. The story ends pretty badly for people like you.
    1
  25.  @Jb.art1  The problem is you are taking your experiences and turning around and acting exactly like an enabler instead of helping to stop the cycle. Everything you are typing (outside of the sarcastic comments which uou seem to have trouble with) is just enablement. You weren't aware of what you were doing in the past, and you're still not aware of what you're doing now.
    1
  26.  @user-ht9oc7gw1f  Not all mothers behave this way. So it's not that she is a mom herself. She's an abuser. You can tell by the tone in her comments.
    1
  27.  @Jb.art1  Well, seeing as you decided drop judgement on Tarantino and his mother in only a few of their comments, I think it's OK for me to evaluate you based on your 16 comments so far. I mean honestly your initial comment was all it took because you reflexively used sarcasm as your weapon in the very first full sentence. Despite claiming to not really know what happened, you automatically decided to minimize Tarantino's side ("Wow! What did she tell him that every day?", "He needs to get over himself") while defending and making excuses for the mother ("Parents aren't perfect", "No instruction manual", etc.). That's all on you. I read Tarantino's comments. I read his mother's comments. I'm reading your comments. You chose your words, and words have consequences. You do not appear self-aware enough to 1. understand your own words or 2. exercise control of your own words. If you were a decent parent you'd be more like, "His mother probably should have gone with 'I understand you like writing and that's fine, but as your parent I have to make sure you maintain your core competencies. If you maintain those, you can do whatever you want. After all, that's what core competencies are for. So let's get you what you need for that stuff and you will be free to continue on with your writing.' instead of the expletives and sarcasm." But you're not. Nothing even remotely resembling that popped out of you over the course of 16 comments. You're nothing but a non sequitur excuse factory for yourself and others like you. The modern day term is "enabler".
    1
  28. Thoughts and prayers lol
    1
  29. 4:50 lol I would have liked to see her answer that one
    1
  30.  @kkaybaltimore  Which part of "not enough political capital" did you not understand?
    1
  31.  @marietellez6021  "But how will we pay for it?"
    1
  32. normal Republican stuff
    1
  33. Shush you
    1
  34. “Why don’t they just go get some usurious payday loan?”
    1
  35. The Truth About Shitty Video Titles That Start With "The Truth"
    1
  36. Wat... what?
    1
  37.  @langdjango2873  You don't actually have to follow Christ's teachings to be a Christian.
    1
  38.  Gonzo Kaporal  You only have a hard time because you don't know how to google. It's OK though, maybe there's a career out there for you. Perhaps in law enforcement...
    1
  39.  Gonzo Kaporal  So was the story true or false? Was the US court ruling true or false? Was the ruling ever overturned in appeal? What evidence have you presented to the contrary?
    1
  40.  Gonzo Kaporal  So you have no evidence to the contrary, despite asking me for evidence, which I provided. That means you have less basis to say anything than I do. It's not a matter of "generalization". If they make that court ruling, that sets precedent. At which point there probably won't be any more challenges because there probably aren't a lot of high IQ people trying to get into the police in the first place, and if they take it to court they know they'll lose. Like, everybody knows this now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
    1
  41.  Gonzo Kaporal  No, it happened, it produced a court ruling and an appeal. At this point it's perfectly legal for them to do it. I don't know how else to make that sink in other than to point straight at the legal precedent. Your only out now is to provide evidence of that ruling being overturned or legislatively being made illegal. Let's hypothetically say it happened to you. You applied to a department and went through their interviews and aptitude tests, and they conclude "This guy's too smart to be here; he won't last. Let's pass on him." It's legal for them to do, and moreover they're not even required to tell you why they passed on you in the first place. What would you do? Would you... take it to court knowing you'd lose? Would you go to the news where they would promptly tell you, "You have no evidence of it happening and by the way it's perfectly legal for them to do that"?
    1
  42.  Gonzo Kaporal  To reiterate, if you ask for evidence, but refuse to provide your own evidence, which makes you a hypocrite. Find the example where the decision was reversed or some legislation made it illegal. The rest of this is just you doubling down in the face of this. I never said there was a national rule setting max IQ for cops. Your hypothetical lawsuit was predicated on a point I never asserted in the first place, so I'm going to let you rethink that one. I said it's not illegal for them to reject applicants on that basis if they wanted. On the other hand, they don't need to have an affirmative rule to reject high IQ applicants. They can just do it. As long as it's not against the law. Just like they're not required to tell you as far as I know. They can tell you if they want to, but it's not required. That's how these guys find out. This a routine thing with lots of other jobs as well. Usually they call it "overqualified". I'm going to guess you don't have much real world experience.
    1
  43.  Gonzo Kaporal  Still waiting for your evidence. You don't seem to understand how this works. I'm not saying it's mandatory. You haven't proven that it's only happened once. You've only counted one example. I mean if you're really counting anonymous quora results, I could have already pointed at something like this: https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-law-enforcement-hire-the-smartest-people-available-to-them Plus I've personally talked to cops who admit to it. But honestly none of that really counts. It's hard documented things like the ruling that count. Yes, precedents are overturned all the time. So show me where this one was overturned. That's the evidence you need to provide. Otherwise you're not proving anything. You have stepped up with even less evidence than you yourself ask for.
    1
  44. So why are you automatically just giving her the benefit of the doubt?
    1
  45. Trump didn't seem to do any preemptive pardons.
    1
  46. Sure we'll be back to normal by Easter.
    1
  47. Fuck yes!
    1
  48.  @Daniel-yo5es  Shouldn't you vote based on policies and not charisma?
    1
  49.  @Daniel-yo5es  And you think charisma is more important than sound policy for that purpose?
    1
  50.  @Daniel-yo5es  So if the rest of the country operates at that level, that means you must also necessarily personally operate on the same level?
    1