Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 49

Thread: Trump melts down as Fox News ignores him, features GOP voters ditching MAGAworld

  1. #31 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    16,111
    Thanks
    6,966
    Thanked 9,364 Times in 6,036 Posts
    Groans
    20
    Groaned 602 Times in 566 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away, dude.
    Saying it's evidence doesn't make it evidence, ExcessLies.
    Judge Juan M. Merchan wrote that Trump “appears to take the position that his situation and this case are unique and that the pre-trial publicity will never subside. However, this view does not align with reality.”


  2. #32 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    16,111
    Thanks
    6,966
    Thanked 9,364 Times in 6,036 Posts
    Groans
    20
    Groaned 602 Times in 566 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LurchAddams View Post
    MAGAworld is going away. CPAC was a huge fail. Did you see the guest list? They few an authoritarian dictator in to bash LGBTQ. These guys are maniacs!
    Yeah, the CPAC convention just highlighted the radical, extremism of today's RepubliQan Party. It's sickening. Both my parents were members of the Republican Party in the 60s, 70s and 80s but today's RepubliQan party is completely different. Disgraceful.

    Judge Juan M. Merchan wrote that Trump “appears to take the position that his situation and this case are unique and that the pre-trial publicity will never subside. However, this view does not align with reality.”


  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Joe Capitalist For This Post:

    LurchAddams (08-08-2022)

  4. #33 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    11,033
    Thanks
    6,674
    Thanked 3,858 Times in 3,138 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    You claim you have evidence, which you do not present in court. So, why are you ignoring this evidence?
    I have presented it to you (and others). You choose to remain in denial instead.

  5. #34 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    11,033
    Thanks
    6,674
    Thanked 3,858 Times in 3,138 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Says the guy that continues to try to tell us that "masks don't work."
    Masks don't work when it comes to stopping or preventing the spread of viruses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Talk about someone ignoring evidence.
    No. You are ignoring science, mathematics, and engineering specs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    The chance of a mask stopping a virus (80-95%) is greater than the chance (0.00001%) that there was enough fraud in the last election to cause a different outcome.
    Completely made up numbers.

    A virus is roughly 0.1 microns in diameter (it can be much smaller, it can be slightly bigger), but for sake of discussion I will refer to a specific virus that is 0.1 microns in diameter.

    The pores of a mask vary in size depending on the type of mask worn. The most common mask that I see worn around has a pore size of roughly 3 microns (or more).

    0.1 microns x30 = 3 microns... so that's a difference of 30x.

    A mosquito is roughly 0.25" in size. 0.25" x30 = 7.5"...

    Would you erect a mosquito net around your deck that has roughly 7.5" pores and expect it to keep out any mosquitos?

    That's similar to what you are doing when you think that a common paper mask can somehow keep out a virus...

  6. #35 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,947
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 5,068 Times in 3,418 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 643 Times in 611 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Masks don't work when it comes to stopping or preventing the spread of viruses.


    No. You are ignoring science, mathematics, and engineering specs.


    Completely made up numbers.

    A virus is roughly 0.1 microns in diameter (it can be much smaller, it can be slightly bigger), but for sake of discussion I will refer to a specific virus that is 0.1 microns in diameter.

    The pores of a mask vary in size depending on the type of mask worn. The most common mask that I see worn around has a pore size of roughly 3 microns (or more).

    0.1 microns x30 = 3 microns... so that's a difference of 30x.

    A mosquito is roughly 0.25" in size. 0.25" x30 = 7.5"...

    Would you erect a mosquito net around your deck that has roughly 7.5" pores and expect it to keep out any mosquitos?

    That's similar to what you are doing when you think that a common paper mask can somehow keep out a virus...
    Congratulations on proving to us you don't follow the science.
    https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/e...ainst-covid-19

    You have failed to account for impaction, diffusion, and interception in your claim about how filters work.
    Then your attempt to provide an example fails to closely resemble how a mask actually works. Masks have layers. Viruses and airborne particles don't have wings to change direction.

    https://learnmetrics.com/hepa-filters/


    But let's look at some actual science....


    The science says that a paper mask would block about 70% of the viruses you claim they can't stop at all. But keep on denying the science all you want to. It only shows you much of an idiot you really are.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  7. #36 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    11,033
    Thanks
    6,674
    Thanked 3,858 Times in 3,138 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Congratulations on proving to us you don't follow the science.
    Congratulations on proving to us that you ignore science, mathematics, and engineering specs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    The EPA is not science, mathematics, or engineering specs.... dumbass...

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    You have failed to account for impaction, diffusion, and interception in your claim about how filters work.
    Splendid. Make your point about how I am in error. The floor is yours...

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Then your attempt to provide an example fails to closely resemble how a mask actually works. Masks have layers.
    Fair enough. Erect a tri-layered mosquito net (with 7.5" pores) around the deck. It won't make a difference. Mosquitos will still get through.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Viruses and airborne particles don't have wings to change direction.
    Meh. Release a bunch of mosquitos into the air during any fair bit of wind and they will go wherever the wind takes them. Many of them will end up going right through the huge 7.5" gaping pores of the netting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Mmmmmmm HOLY LINK!!!!! Dismissed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    But let's look at some actual science....
    This is not science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    The science says that a paper mask would block about 70% of the viruses you claim they can't stop at all.
    Made up number. A paper mask cannot stop a virus. Its pores are far too large and the virus is far too small. You continue to believe that erecting a tri-layered mosquito net with 7.5" pores around your deck can somehow stop mosquitoes that are a quarter of an inch in size from being blown into or otherwise entering into your deck area.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    But keep on denying the science all you want to. It only shows you much of an idiot you really are.
    Your issue, not mine.

  8. #37 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    29,128
    Thanks
    4,038
    Thanked 12,340 Times in 8,498 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 2,701 Times in 2,506 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    I have presented it to you (and others). You choose to remain in denial instead.
    If you have this evidence, why are you hiding it from the courts?
    Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it best, "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts."
    Paul Begala, "Politics is show business for ugly people."
    Stephen Colbert, "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
    trump is a child rapist. We all know it.

  9. #38 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    11,033
    Thanks
    6,674
    Thanked 3,858 Times in 3,138 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    If you have this evidence, why are you hiding it from the courts?
    Why are you so obsessed with courts viewing it? The evidence exists, whether or not a court views it.

  10. #39 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,947
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 5,068 Times in 3,418 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 643 Times in 611 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Congratulations on proving to us that you ignore science, mathematics, and engineering specs.


    The EPA is not science, mathematics, or engineering specs.... dumbass...


    Splendid. Make your point about how I am in error. The floor is yours...


    Fair enough. Erect a tri-layered mosquito net (with 7.5" pores) around the deck. It won't make a difference. Mosquitos will still get through.


    Meh. Release a bunch of mosquitos into the air during any fair bit of wind and they will go wherever the wind takes them. Many of them will end up going right through the huge 7.5" gaping pores of the netting.


    Mmmmmmm HOLY LINK!!!!! Dismissed.


    This is not science.


    Made up number. A paper mask cannot stop a virus. Its pores are far too large and the virus is far too small. You continue to believe that erecting a tri-layered mosquito net with 7.5" pores around your deck can somehow stop mosquitoes that are a quarter of an inch in size from being blown into or otherwise entering into your deck area.


    Your issue, not mine.
    I tell you what gfm. To prove that impaction works I will make a bet with you. I will give you a marshmallow gun that can fire 40 feet with 100 small marshmallows about 1/2" in size. Then I will construct a 'mask' using 3 layers of chain link fence with the fences 2" apart.. All the holes will be 1-7/8" or larger. Then you stand 5' away from the first fence. I will give you $50 for every marshmallow you get through the 3 fences. You will give me $15 for every one you don't get through all three fences. Are you willing to take the bet? If you are correct, it should be an easy $5,000 for you. If I am correct, I will make at most $1,500. But based on the way impaction works, you will lucky get about 12% of the marshmallows through the 3 fences. This is simple physics that you seem to want to deny.

    It's funny how you claim holy link and claim the science the EPA publishes isn't science while continuing to rely on your non-scientific nonsense that fails to take into account the 3 ways that filters actually work. So where is your science? Where is your engineering? Where is your mathematics? Your idiotic claims aren't evidence of anything other than your idiocy. If you think the studies referenced by the EPA are wrong as to how filtering works then you should be showing us how it is wrong instead of just using a logical fallacy to discount it. The fact that you can't dispute impaction, diffusion, or interception speaks volumes as to what science you are relying on. You are like a three year old who can't understand that objects in motion require a force to change direction. And we haven't even gotten to brownian motion yet.

    You really should stop using the same verbiage as your sock if you don't want to be accused of being a sock.

    Let me make a net that looks like this with the average size opening at 7.5" and then blow mosquitos at it at 100 miles an hour and I'll bet it blocks about 50% of them because they will impact the fibers in the 'mask'. Of course to be comparable the mosquitos would need to be blown at this 'mask' at about 6,000 mph to scale from 30 microns to 7.5" if we wanted to use your claims that things can simply scale up for comparison.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  11. #40 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,947
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 5,068 Times in 3,418 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 643 Times in 611 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Why are you so obsessed with courts viewing it? The evidence exists, whether or not a court views it.
    The evidence exists but you just can't show it to a court?
    Yeah.. that sounds like a three year old. I have it but I can't show it to you. You just have to take my word for it.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  12. #41 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    11,033
    Thanks
    6,674
    Thanked 3,858 Times in 3,138 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    The evidence exists but you just can't show it to a court?
    It is irrelevant whether or not I show it to a court. It exists, regardless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Yeah.. that sounds like a three year old. I have it but I can't show it to you. You just have to take my word for it.
    I've shown it to you already, dumbass. Pay attention.

  13. #42 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    11,033
    Thanks
    6,674
    Thanked 3,858 Times in 3,138 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    I tell you what gfm. To prove that impaction works I will make a bet with you. I will give you a marshmallow gun that can fire 40 feet with 100 small marshmallows about 1/2" in size. Then I will construct a 'mask' using 3 layers of chain link fence with the fences 2" apart.. All the holes will be 1-7/8" or larger. Then you stand 5' away from the first fence. I will give you $50 for every marshmallow you get through the 3 fences. You will give me $15 for every one you don't get through all three fences. Are you willing to take the bet? If you are correct, it should be an easy $5,000 for you. If I am correct, I will make at most $1,500. But based on the way impaction works, you will lucky get about 12% of the marshmallows through the 3 fences. This is simple physics that you seem to want to deny.
    You suck at paying attention to what I say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    It's funny how you claim holy link and claim the science the EPA publishes isn't science while continuing to rely on your non-scientific nonsense that fails to take into account the 3 ways that filters actually work. So where is your science? Where is your engineering? Where is your mathematics?
    Already presented to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Your idiotic claims aren't evidence of anything other than your idiocy. If you think the studies referenced by the EPA are wrong as to how filtering works then you should be showing us how it is wrong instead of just using a logical fallacy to discount it. The fact that you can't dispute impaction, diffusion, or interception speaks volumes as to what science you are relying on. You are like a three year old who can't understand that objects in motion require a force to change direction. And we haven't even gotten to brownian motion yet.
    I've already disputed the BS that you've stolen from others because you can't think for yourself.

  14. #43 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,947
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 5,068 Times in 3,418 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 643 Times in 611 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    You suck at paying attention to what I say.


    Already presented to you.


    I've already disputed the BS that you've stolen from others because you can't think for yourself.
    ROFLMAO.. So you can think for yourself because you just discount science that has proven to be true? That is not thinking. That is denial.

    Once again, you have failed to provide any math, engineering or science backing your claim that masks don't work. Meanwhile the rest of us know that a body in motion requires a force to change direction which is why impaction works in a mask. Denying actual science while claiming only you are using science seems to be your stock in trade.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  15. #44 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,947
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 5,068 Times in 3,418 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 643 Times in 611 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    It is irrelevant whether or not I show it to a court. It exists, regardless.


    I've shown it to you already, dumbass. Pay attention.
    So, you can't provide your evidence to a finder of truth that would allow for both sides to make their arguments. But your evidence is still real?
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  16. #45 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    32,694
    Thanks
    4,516
    Thanked 15,224 Times in 10,695 Posts
    Groans
    550
    Groaned 579 Times in 563 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Capitalist View Post
    https://apple.news/A6eR-nMmzS9Sp18m3aKYXRg

    Fox News is taking Trump out of the spotlight after bombshell January 6th evidence emerged. The New York Times reporting that Fox is "bypassing' Trump" in favor of showcasing other Republicans, effectively displacing him from his the news cycle. It comes as GOP voters tell Fox News they don’t want Trump in 2024.
    How many Trump threads can you create in one day? You are starting to rival the king and that ain't a compliment.

Similar Threads

  1. Trump wets panties as Fox News turns on MAGAWorld.
    By Joe Capitalist in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 08-05-2022, 06:38 AM
  2. Trump Melts down over Mueller
    By Cinnabar in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 06-27-2019, 08:40 AM
  3. Trump ditching Twitter, possibly for Instagram
    By reagansghost in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-01-2019, 09:24 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-16-2018, 01:03 PM
  5. once more congress ignores voters
    By Don Quixote in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-26-2012, 09:58 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •