Trump

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Trump

Yes, Bill Clinton. Yet another man done in by lust. Or, as you've pointed out, only partially done in by lust. He spoke in Hamilton many years ago. A fundraiser of some sort, I think. Notwithstanding that it was a fundraiser, I seem to recall reading that his fee was low six figures - don't recall the exact amount. So long as they're male and their offenses don't put them in prison for a long time, a lot of bad actors seem to land on their feet. Is it right? Probably a question with no definitive answer.

Bill Clinton's crime which got him impeached and cost him his law license was not having sexual relations with an intern, it was lying about it under oath.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Trump

I've noticed a trend over the past few years of conservatives calling people trolls whenever they disagree on a topic, and then proceed to disregard everything they say on the basis of this claim. This is why Justin Trudeau won; because of people like you.

I admire your writing style and your powerful grip on reality.

[Lucas Davies]

Re: Trump

I've noticed a trend over the past few years of conservatives calling people trolls whenever they disagree on a topic, and then proceed to disregard everything they say on the basis of this claim. This is why Justin Trudeau won; because of people like you.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Trump

...
Bill Clinton was impeached and lost his law license but otherwise was unaffected and promptly made piles of money as an ex-Prez. ...

Yes, Bill Clinton. Yet another man done in by lust. Or, as you've pointed out, only partially done in by lust. He spoke in Hamilton many years ago. A fundraiser of some sort, I think. Notwithstanding that it was a fundraiser, I seem to recall reading that his fee was low six figures - don't recall the exact amount. So long as they're male and their offenses don't put them in prison for a long time, a lot of bad actors seem to land on their feet. Is it right? Probably a question with no definitive answer.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Trump

Thanks Vlad. Your argument above was great addressing Ben the troll. It was well thought out and funny too. I've stopped reading his posts. Ben and Paul couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag.

Wasting time on them just diminishes anyone who bothers. The one thing we can't get more of is time. No one on their death bed will say, "I should have read more of Paul Bonham's or Ben Daswani's posts on Chesstalk." The few snippets that I see quoted in other people's posts do not fill me with nostalgia but simply act as reinforcement for the original decision to deep six their posts.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Trump

That might be true if chess ability correlated perfectly with intelligence. You know what correlates a whole lot better? IQ... because, you know, that's what it's designed to measure.

How about this: you and I will write the same Mensa-certified IQ test. If you score higher than me, I will publicly admit that I'm a moron and send you a check for $1000. If I score higher than you, you will never fucking post in this thread again. Deal? I'm absolutely serious.

Hey Ben if you consider me as dumb as Mavros or any other conservative I will take you up on your $1000.00 challenge. First try taking this short 20 question online IQ test and tell us what your score is. My result was 190 indicated by the screen shot I took of the test result below. Here is the link https://www.arealme.com/iq/en/ The questions start really easy and get progressively more difficult. Only one or two seemed really hard. I don't think these tests prove anything but lets see how we stack up. I have never tried an IQ test except in elementary school so it is a first for me. I also tried the half hour online mensa 30 question workout IQ test and scored 100 percent.http://www.mensa.org/workout/feedback So I feel very comfortable about doing a real accredited test if you really want to waste $1000.00



[IMG][/IMG]

[Mavros Whissell]

Re: Trump

Thanks Vlad. Your argument above was great addressing Ben the troll. It was well thought out and funny too. I've stopped reading his posts. Ben and Paul couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Trump

For anyone's info, here's a link about Ontario Liberal scandals, starting with the recent ones:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/news/on...eral-scandals/

Moral: Don't let window dressing (= Party platform) get in the way of what you really want to do after an election's over.

[Mavros Whissell]

Re: Trump

Mavros, I'm sorry but I really do not wish to get into all of this with you. I said earlier in this sub-thread that I found most of your comments disturbing. That continues to be the case. More importantly, I think Ben is doing a far better job defending himself than I could do. Ben's style may not be to your liking but I agree with virtually everything he's said here.

There is one amusing little thing I'd like to point out. In an earlier post in this sub-thread, Ben referred to 'raNtings'. Sid misread that as 'ratings' and now you're continuing that error. Kind of funny, really. :)

Thanks Peter. I'd rather hear an evaluation from somebody who isn't as blatantly biased as you are. All the best to you.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Trump

Yes, you're right. I didn't realize the actual Senate breakdown for the mid-terms until I just looked it up a minute ago. The Dems now have 46 senators with 23 of them up for re-election in 2018. Only 8 Reps and 2 independents are also up for re-election. So even if the Dems win all of their re-election bids plus take all of the Rep and indie bids, they'll still be 11 votes short of the 2/3 required in the Senate to convict a President and turf him/her out of office. However, the Senate convicts and turfs. It's actually the House, as you know doubt know, that impeaches and only a simple majority is needed there. In 2018, the Dems would need to hang on to the 193 seats they've got and pick up an additional 25 to have a shot at impeachment. Possible? Probably still a long shot, and that's assuming they could make an effective case for impeachment. Who knows, Trump may yet get his act in order.

He has been doing many of the right things to keep his base happy. Barring some catastrophe I would expect the Republicans to come close to the 60 votes since about 8 of the Democrats hail from states where Trump won convincingly.

Bill Clinton was impeached and lost his law license but otherwise was unaffected and promptly made piles of money as an ex-Prez.

Re Sajjan, I was shocked. And you're right, there was absolutely zero upside for taking such a huge risk with his career. In the face of such an illogical and self-harming act, one has to wonder if he is suffering from a mental health issue that has impaired his judgement. Personally, I think he has permanently damaged his credibility and should resign. A tragic situation.

Jet lag and a lack of sleep might be one possible explanation. A temporary unleashing of his personality disorder would be another explanation. He seemed like he would make a good minister. He should probably study Trump if he wants to get past this without resigning.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Trump

To add to what Mr. Belzberg has said:...

Mr.Belzberg pointed out Ben's rating is lower than mine, so by Ben's own standards, I should be calling him a moron. ...

Mavros, I'm sorry but I really do not wish to get into all of this with you. I said earlier in this sub-thread that I found most of your comments disturbing. That continues to be the case. More importantly, I think Ben is doing a far better job defending himself than I could do. Ben's style may not be to your liking but I agree with virtually everything he's said here.

There is one amusing little thing I'd like to point out. In an earlier post in this sub-thread, Ben referred to 'raNtings'. Sid misread that as 'ratings' and now you're continuing that error. Kind of funny, really. :)

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Trump

There are many more Democrats than Republicans coming up for re-election in the Senate. I don't see the Democratic party in its current form while doubling down on the policies that caused them to lose in 2016 will offer the majority of people what they want. Right now it looks like Pocahontas Elizabeth Warren is the front runner.

Speaking of liberals telling tall tales what do you make of our Defense Minister's speech taking credit for the planning and execution of a military offensive? Why? What was the upside?

...

Yes, you're right. I didn't realize the actual Senate breakdown for the mid-terms until I just looked it up a minute ago. The Dems now have 46 senators with 23 of them up for re-election in 2018. Only 8 Reps and 2 independents are also up for re-election. So even if the Dems win all of their re-election bids plus take all of the Rep and indie bids, they'll still be 11 votes short of the 2/3 required in the Senate to convict a President and turf him/her out of office. However, the Senate convicts and turfs. It's actually the House, as you know doubt know, that impeaches and only a simple majority is needed there. In 2018, the Dems would need to hang on to the 193 seats they've got and pick up an additional 25 to have a shot at impeachment. Possible? Probably still a long shot, and that's assuming they could make an effective case for impeachment. Who knows, Trump may yet get his act in order.

Re Sajjan, I was shocked. And you're right, there was absolutely zero upside for taking such a huge risk with his career. In the face of such an illogical and self-harming act, one has to wonder if he is suffering from a mental health issue that has impaired his judgement. Personally, I think he has permanently damaged his credibility and should resign. A tragic situation.

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Trump

Is this the all-time funniest thing to ever happen on ChessTalk?

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Trump

I missed this but am more amused than concerned with charges that my ratings are "unsubstantiated".

I went to chess.ca and looked up both Vlad's and Mavros's ratings, how is it that these ratings are "unsubstantiated" as you claim?

Oh. My. God. Can neither of you read? I never said "unsubstantiated ratings." I said "unsubstantiated rantings."

You two literally cannot read. No wonder you have such stupid ideas.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Trump

Mavros's explanation of why his statements are not racist in content is one i do not need to expand upon. The anti conservatives in the United States are referred to as left wing albeit that may be somewhat of a misnomer. Yes, your rhetoric is unoriginal and sounds no different then what is heard every night on US news stations. Einstein was a theist albeit, not one who believed in mainstream religions or Gods.

Some of the more interesting courses that I took in my undergrad and graduate programs were courses in the religious studies program which was part of the arts faculty to fulfill the requirement to have courses from the faculties of science, social science and arts in order to get a degree. I can't say that I agreed with my professor who believed and wrote books on a much more limited God than the one I believed in but he brought up some interesting ideas and we had some interesting discussions. One of the useful ideas was the idea of an Ultimate Reality which all religions seek to bring their believers closer to. In one of the introductory courses they introduced nine ways of being religious or bringing yourself closer to that Ultimate Reality.

When I listen to a true Atheist suggest that it is more likely that the order we see in everything from the Cosmos to subatomic particles to the beautiful symmetric pattern of a salt crystal and say that it is more probable that all of this came together because of random chemical reactions rather then a force that is beyond our comprehension suggest hubris and thoughtless rhetoric.

You have the gall to say how smart you are and that you know all the answers suggests real stupidity to me.

Youthful narcissm perhaps. The headline from his study, "Atheists find that atheists are smarter than theists." I am not surprised by the finding as there is a lot of garbage research in the social sciences complete with fudged data or adjusted data.

I went to chess.ca and looked up both Vlad's and Mavros's ratings, how is it that these ratings are "unsubstantiated" as you claim? Or maybe the evidence is not something that you like to hear so you invent stories about "unsubstantiated" ratings.

I missed this but am more amused than concerned with charges that my ratings are "unsubstantiated".

You know, like the Wikileaks stories were at first called bogus by many Dems until they learned that something called Domain Keys Identified Mail (DKIM) making proof of altered emails "substantiated" except that in Wikileaks history not one email forgery was ever "substantiated".

Reality hurts when you are a Democrat.