Statistics are an average, not to be applied to a single person as prophecy. Surely you can reason that out?

Thats a fair opinion, although I think its likely to cause the opposite reactions than you listed. But again, who really knows.

Also I’m sure most people in most places are good people, just like anywhere, Lebanon included.

If everyone knows gerrymandering is bad, why is it still allowed to happen?

Sort of telling how you can teach people to associate good thoughts with awful things. Conditioning is a bitch.

I’ll save you time. Licensed factory in Europe, making Chinese beepers, was compromised or owned by Israel. They then put explosives in the pagers and set them to explode when paged a certain code.

They knew hezbollah was the purchaser, and would disperse them amongst its members.

I think its stupid unless it stopped some imminent horrible attack. Otherwise, Israel has given themselves away, and only killed 8 people for it. Maybe they had trouble rigging them to steal their communications.

Oh so everyone there who had a pager must have been a bad guy. Got it, solid logic. Can’t wait for the war to spread further.

As does america have non-combat elements too.

Its not rocket science how they did it. What is the impressive part? Are we really just going to say civilians don’t matter? Is it impressive to you because of how many people were hurt?

In no way is it required to respect the craft or the method.

National order isnt based on tit for tat. If someone commits a war crime against you it doesnt mean you get to do it too.

In my opinion the time of day they chose to blow them shows they wanted as much collateral damage as they could.

What’s the advantage of making excuses for committing war crimes?

Because anyone within 5 meters of the pager also was hurt.

I’d argue they focus too little on the first 8 and too much on the last 2. Both would be an error in analysis of course.

Also it runs the risk of people applying statistics to individual cases, or groups too small to be statistically relevant.

I don’t think this makes trump look good either way, I’m not defending him.

Either he’s an idiot who got tricked into posting something he should have known not to, or he’s an idiot who has idiot friends who sent him something and he posted it.

I thought she was going to sue him for it.

Never said I was defending what trump did. Just said he could have been duped into it. I actually thought shed sue him over it but I guess the endorsement works.

Sure that could happen, but then you never had those voters. At some point you have to lay the blame at the people who voted like this, if it happens.

This is like saying that getting a question wrong on a test can be the difference between pass and fail, and then picking a question at random and deciding to focus on that instead of the whole test.

You are right it could be enough people to match the difference in votes, but thats not the same as saying its essential we get that voter block no matter what. Theres a ton of things that make a difference, but its the collection of them that makes a candidate.

Did he prompt it himself or did someone send it to him?

Just gotta find a weak spot in the pipeline of bullshit that goes to Trump.

The point I’m making is the art could have come from anyone. Why not a troll or shitposters? 4chan has done stuff like this for literal decades.

You have a source that says Donald trump made the images with his own prompts? Why wouldnt he be sued for that. Reposting someone else’s images was already risky enough.

I’ll believe it though if you know where I can read about that.

Not a conspiracy theory by the way, was just saying ai art from the internet could come from anyone, and shitposters and trolls exist. Theres even a professional board for it called 4chan.

So let’s say I made the AI images. And posted them on republican forums knowing they would eat them up. Keep sending them to bigger and bigger names, make a not farm to make the posts visible.

Finally I get the big cheetoh to repost it. Boom, I a democrat, have instigated Taylor Swift into endorsing the Democrats.

I’m pointing out why its hard to disprove the stuff trump says, not defending them. You can’t say dogs and cats aren’t being eaten because you can’t prove that, you can say that a reputable source said its not happening.

The debate is about the candidates, if they want to lie and make fools out of themselves they can. I do like that they were able to fact check the Springfield stuff because it sounds like the rumors are causing racism and violence. Hopefully the fact check helped a bit.

I’m willing to change my opinion though. What were some other things they could have fact checked but didnt?