Return to “Polls”

Pick the next president...

Poll ended at Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:52 am You may select 1 option

Hillary Clinton
Total votes: 8 (32%)
Donald J. Trump
Total votes: 14 (56%)
Gary Johnson
Total votes: 2 (8%)
Jill Stein
Total votes: 1 (4%)
Total votes: 25
Post

Re: American Election 2016

#211
Sources that are news sites which use social media as their citation are not reliable. There are no third pary references to verify that these events actually occurred. However, if you cite the violence that some protesters have caused, then yes you could back that up with evidence from multiple sources including reliable news agencies.

I don't understand why that is difficult to comprehend. It's the same thing about using Wikipedia as if it were a reliable source. If you pull from it directly the instructor will not accept your paper. Yes I understand and agree that there are radicals on both political sides and I don't condone the actions of either.

Trump won't be able to necessarily pass that climate stuff though the senate. It would likely have to be a bipartisan effort. His primary concern is American jobs and boarder security. Just think of all the big ships that won't be traveling back and forth across the Atlantic to buy and transport oil. That should help cut down on the CO2 emissions you are worried about while making the US energy independent. But if you really are concerned at CO2 emissions then go have a chat with China who produces far more than the US.

While we are on the subject, how does the EU handle energy generation? What clean tech do you have that the US needs to implement?
Image
Post

Re: American Election 2016

#213
Grumblesaur wrote:So what, then, is your arbitrarily-defined whitelist of acceptable sources, or blacklist of unacceptable sources?
This assumes he finds any sources that don't align to his belief's acceptable.
With enough time and effort on google, you can find a statement from anyone that confirms anything you already think.

Code: Select all

<+BMRX> Silver Invokes Lewdly Verbose Experiences Readily With Absurd Rectal Expeditions
Post

Re: American Election 2016

#214
BFett wrote: It's the same thing about using Wikipedia as if it were a reliable source. If you pull from it directly the instructor will not accept your paper. Yes I understand and agree that there are radicals on both political sides and I don't condone the actions of either.
Dunno what age you live in, but Wikipedia has been a valid source for years. The only place it can be 'banned' is high school, because it makes writing essays too easy and they want you to do some actual work.
BFett wrote:Trump won't be able to necessarily pass that climate stuff though the senate. It would likely have to be a bipartisan effort.
Yes, he'll have a tough job getting it through the American senate. You know, the one filled with people who think global warming is a hoax because it snows outside.

BFett wrote: His primary concern is American jobs and boarder security. Just think of all the big ships that won't be traveling back and forth across the Atlantic to buy and transport oil. That should help cut down on the CO2 emissions you are worried about while making the US energy independent.
Er, no. The output of those ships is negligible compared to the surplus of CO2 that's produced when you start to dump climate pacts.
I mean, think about it, if the oil the ship used was in any way comparable to the amount of oil the ship can move the transport wouldn't exactly be profitable, would it?
BFett wrote: But if you really are concerned at CO2 emissions then go have a chat with China who produces far more than the US.
Global warming isn't a situation where you can tell one guy to fix his stuff and sit on your bum, everyone needs to make an effort. China is the largest producer, yes, but the USA is the second largest (yes, that's when we consider the EU to be one country) and cannot sit idle.
BFett wrote: While we are on the subject, how does the EU handle energy generation? What clean tech do you have that the US needs to implement?
Well, let's see. Total output is nice to look at impact of a country, but to see how well or bad an individual country is doing, we need to compare output per capita (since comparing a billion people nation to a million people one is hardly fair.)
From wikipedia, a couple of the large producers (you can follow the blue numbers for sources if you don't like it) Image As you can see, the US produces about 2.5 times as much per person as the EU does (and more than twice as China does), so yes, I'd definitely say there's room for improvement.
The technologies aren't the problem (wind energy, hydro, solar, biomass, imposing strengthening limits on CO2 produced by cars, etc), what's needed is actually implementing them.
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Image
Post

Re: American Election 2016

#215
Let me correct my past statement, The sources themselves are fine, (I did a quick google and the ones Dino presents are considered reliable) however the articles which cite social media and make arguments based off of what is posted by random people is not reliable in my opinion.

For an example of what I'm looking for try googling "protests against trump" and look at what comes up. The first is by CNN, the second is by ABC, and the third is by New York Times. If you look at these articles you'll see that they do not rely on social media to make their point, and more specifically, do not rely on posts made by citizens we know nothing about.

So, if you claim that a Trump supporter brutally beat a man for voting for Hillary, I want to see it written in the same format as above. The other links that show up on that first page (other than Wikipedia) are likely reliable as well.

Blacklist: Tabloids, and possibly MSNBC
Image
Post

Re: American Election 2016

#217
BFett wrote:Let me correct my past statement, The sources themselves are fine, (I did a quick google and the ones Dino presents are considered reliable) however the articles which cite social media and make arguments based off of what is posted by random people is not reliable in my opinion.

For an example of what I'm looking for try googling "protests against trump" and look at what comes up. The first is by CNN, the second is by ABC, and the third is by New York Times. If you look at these articles you'll see that they do not rely on social media to make their point, and more specifically, do not rely on posts made by citizens we know nothing about.

So, if you claim that a Trump supporter brutally beat a man for voting for Hillary, I want to see it written in the same format as above. The other links that show up on that first page (other than Wikipedia) are likely reliable as well.

Blacklist: Tabloids, and possibly MSNBC
Kay.
Here. CNN was fine right?
:ghost:
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Image
Post

Re: American Election 2016

#218
Dinosawer wrote:
BFett wrote:Let me correct my past statement, The sources themselves are fine, (I did a quick google and the ones Dino presents are considered reliable) however the articles which cite social media and make arguments based off of what is posted by random people is not reliable in my opinion.

For an example of what I'm looking for try googling "protests against trump" and look at what comes up. The first is by CNN, the second is by ABC, and the third is by New York Times. If you look at these articles you'll see that they do not rely on social media to make their point, and more specifically, do not rely on posts made by citizens we know nothing about.

So, if you claim that a Trump supporter brutally beat a man for voting for Hillary, I want to see it written in the same format as above. The other links that show up on that first page (other than Wikipedia) are likely reliable as well.

Blacklist: Tabloids, and possibly MSNBC
Kay.
Here. CNN was fine right?
:ghost:
Much better article. Thanks!

I'll read it later and get back to you.
Image
Post

Re: American Election 2016

#219
Dinosawer wrote:
BFett wrote: It's the same thing about using Wikipedia as if it were a reliable source. If you pull from it directly the instructor will not accept your paper. Yes I understand and agree that there are radicals on both political sides and I don't condone the actions of either.
Dunno what age you live in, but Wikipedia has been a valid source for years. The only place it can be 'banned' is high school, because it makes writing essays too easy and they want you to do some actual work.
It depends on the profession you are working in and the level of professionalism you need or want. In universities and other scientific areas, Wikipedia is not seen as a valid source, because the content of articles can be changed by everyone so it is not valid with verifiability.
Wikipedia is perfect to gain information about a subject you are not familiar with and then digging deeper and searching for sources like essays, compendiums, encyclopaedia and handbooks from which you can quote from. And of course it is perfect for private use, like the Encyclopaedia Britannica in ye olde days. :)
Post

Re: American Election 2016

#221
Victor Tombs wrote::shifty: Isn't this event over? Wasn't a winner declared? :?
I think this party just started. We have yet to see who are the winners, I think. :ghost:
"winners" imply loosers, and in this case I fear it to be a much larger group than anyone wants, and they are not confined to American democrats either. :(
old-fashioned :ghost:
Post

Re: American Election 2016

#225
Yeah, right. Because Mr. T didn't start any hating of his own... :roll:

But I must say I concur with the thought of leaving the man do his job a little before jumping to conclusions.
Spoiler:      SHOW
Even if the conclusions are damned to become true. After a year or so his own party can start to put vetos right and left and run the lobby machine to take him out of the chair.
:shifty:
I have been - and always shall be - your friend.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron