Trump’s association with Laura Loomer should be disqualifying in itself

[The Real timschochet 6,441]

6 minutes ago, BrahmaBulls said:

You're denying Kamala sucked off Willie for a promotion?

There’s no evidence whatsoever that it was for a promotion or that their relationship was for political gain. It’s a sexist accusation. 

[Horseman 2,369]

27 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

There’s no evidence whatsoever that it was for a promotion or that their relationship was for political gain. It’s a sexist accusation. 

She got her very first two appointments from him after working as an escort. That alone is proof enough. 

[5-Points 3,395]

 

What is The Association Fallacy In Behavioral Economics?

What Is The Association Fallacy?

The Association Fallacy, also known as guilt by association, refers to an error in critical thinking where a person connects an individual’s beliefs, values, or actions to those of a group based on shared characteristics or associations, regardless of whether the individual truly represents or agrees with the group’s beliefs. The association fallacy often leads to unwarranted assumptions and stereotypes.

Key Features Of The Association Fallacy

• False Grouping

  The Association Fallacy relies on creating a connection between an individual and a group, even when such a connection may not be accurate. For example, if someone shares a common characteristic with a group, such as nationality or profession, they may be incorrectly assumed to share other traits or beliefs held by the group.

• Ignoring Individual Differences

  This fallacy ignores individual differences and assumes homogeneity within a group. It discounts the fact that groups are made up of distinct individuals, each with their unique thoughts, behaviors, and attitudes.

• Unjustified Conclusions

  The Association Fallacy can lead to unjustified conclusions about a person based on their association with a group. These conclusions are often used to discredit or misrepresent someone’s character or argument.

Implications Of The Association Fallacy

The Association Fallacy can contribute to unfair biases, stereotypes, and discrimination. It can negatively impact social cohesion, mutual understanding, and effective communication. In debates and arguments, this fallacy can detract from the real issues and lead to ad hominem attacks based on group affiliations rather than addressing the points being made.

Examples Of The Association Fallacy

• Political Stereotypes

  Assuming all members of a political party share the same beliefs or act in the same way is an example of the Association Fallacy. This can contribute to political polarization and misunderstanding.

• Social Prejudices

  Assuming that all people from a certain demographic share the same characteristics or behaviors can lead to harmful prejudices and stereotypes. This can affect social interactions and decision-making processes.

• Workplace Judgments

  In the workplace, an employee may be judged based on the reputation of their previous employer or colleagues, which can lead to biased assessments and decisions.

Research On The Association Fallacy

Many research studies in social psychology, such as those on stereotyping and prejudice, provide insights into the Association Fallacy. They show how easy it is for people to make generalizations based on group membership and how these biases can affect perceptions and interactions. The knowledge from these studies can be used to devise strategies for reducing the influence of the Association Fallacy.

Addressing The Association Fallacy

Recognizing and acknowledging the Association Fallacy is the first step in combating it. It’s essential to remind ourselves that group membership does not define an individual’s beliefs or behaviors. Encouraging critical thinking, promoting individuality, and fostering empathy and understanding can help reduce the impact of this fallacy in our everyday lives. Additionally, in argumentation and debate, focus should be maintained on the arguments themselves and not be sidetracked by unjustified conclusions based on group associations.

Link

[The Real timschochet 6,441]

2 minutes ago, Horseman said:

She got her very first two appointments from him after working as an escort. That alone is proof enough. 

She didn’t “work as an escort”. Why do you spread this foolishness? 

[5-Points 3,395]

33 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

There’s no evidence whatsoever that it was for a promotion or that their relationship was for political gain. It’s a sexist accusation. 

It also happens to be true. So there's that. 

[5-Points 3,395]

5 minutes ago, Horseman said:

She got her very first two appointments from him after working as an escort. That alone is proof enough. 

Being Montel Williams' side piece should've been enough to DQ her from public office. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

39 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I know you know this but when the options are senile, ineffectual old man vs. megalomaniacal fraudster who tried to steal the last election, works to remove personal freedoms (like voting), and demonizing literally everyone that isn’t in agreement, senile old man looks pretty appealing. 

You'd think people that appreciate the constitution could understand that. We've seen that clearly you don't. 

How about when a party is subverting democracy by selecting your representative instead of you voting for that person?  Especially after spending 4 years complaining about the other guy trying to that very thing?

You'd think people that appreciate the constitution could understand that. We've seen that clearly you don't.

[The Real timschochet 6,441]

1 minute ago, 5-Points said:

It also happens to be true. So there's that. 

It could be true I suppose. Much more likely it isn’t. I don’t care either way. The fact that some of you do is, unfortunately, evidence of the sexism and racism that still exists in this society. 

[The Real timschochet 6,441]

4 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

How about when a party is subverting democracy by selecting your representative instead of you voting for that person?  Especially after spending 4 years complaining about the other guy trying to that very thing?

You'd think people that appreciate the constitution could understand that. We've seen that clearly you don't.

There was no subversion of Democracy involved with the nomination of Kamala Harris and it had nothing to do with the Constitution. Don’t you guys get tired of this lie? 

And in any case this thread is about Trump hanging out with a racist unhinged idiot. Why do you and others here keep trying to change the subject? 

[5-Points 3,395]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

It could be true I suppose. Much more likely it isn’t. I don’t care either way. The fact that some of you do is, unfortunately, evidence of the sexism and racism that still exists in this society. 

The only racism and sexism I see is you and yours staunchly opposing meritocracy because you think certain groups can't compete on a level playing field. 

If she used her "talents" to get preferential treatment, so be it. But don't pretend that it constitutes "qualification."

[The Real timschochet 6,441]

Just now, 5-Points said:

The only racism and sexism I see is you and yours staunchly opposing meritocracy because you think certain groups can't compete on a level playing field. 

If she used her "talents" to get preferential treatment, so be it. But don't pretend that it constitutes "qualification."

My view of her qualifications is this: she was excellent as a prosecutor. She was excellent as an attorney general. She was superb as a U.S. senator. She’s been fine as VP (though it’s a thankless job that never really accomplishes much.) 

She is one of the better qualified people ever to run for President. Meanwhile her opponent had 4 years in the job already, he was awful (perhaps the worst President ever), he was fired, and tried to stay illegally after he was fired. So it’s not really a difficult decision. 

[5-Points 3,395]

8 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

My view of her qualifications is this: she was excellent as a prosecutor. She was excellent as an attorney general. She was superb as a U.S. senator. She’s been fine as VP (though it’s a thankless job that never really accomplishes much.) 

She is one of the better qualified people ever to run for President. Meanwhile her opponent had 4 years in the job already, he was awful (perhaps the worst President ever), he was fired, and tried to stay illegally after he was fired. So it’s not really a difficult decision. 

Everything you just posted is demonstrably false. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,949]

Tom talks about respecting the constitution but he’s ok with spying on his political opponents, the current t admin being turned over by the supreme court numerous times, and getting rid of the electoral college. Never mind the shenanigans at the border.  To name a few. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,241]

22 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

My view of her qualifications is this: she was excellent as a prosecutor. She was excellent as an attorney general. She was superb as a U.S. senator. She’s been fine as VP (though it’s a thankless job that never really accomplishes much.) 

She is one of the better qualified people ever to run for President. Meanwhile her opponent had 4 years in the job already, he was awful (perhaps the worst President ever), he was fired, and tried to stay illegally after he was fired. So it’s not really a difficult decision. 

Excellent attorney generals don’t use slaves to fight fire, they also don’t conceal evidence that can exonerate innocent men 

not surprised that you think a far left Marxist was an excellent senator either 

[HellToupee 1,591]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

There’s no evidence whatsoever that it was for a promotion or that their relationship was for political gain. It’s a sexist accusation. 

[HellToupee 1,591]

23 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

She is one of the better qualified people ever to run for President. 

This is like a greatest hits album 

[Horseman 2,369]

45 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

She didn’t “work as an escort”. Why do you spread this foolishness? 

Are you his daughter?

[IGotWorms 4,057]

59 minutes ago, Horseman said:

She got her very first two appointments from him after working as an escort. That alone is proof enough. 

And melania was an Eastern European wh0re. Good on those working girls for getting a leg up!

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

46 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

There was no subversion of Democracy involved with the nomination of Kamala Harris and it had nothing to do with the Constitution. Don’t you guys get tired of this lie? 

And in any case this thread is about Trump hanging out with a racist unhinged idiot. Why do you and others here keep trying to change the subject? 

I'm calling out the credibility of the OP (yeah you), to be a judge of character to even bring up the topic.  You have zero, by the way.

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

And melania was an Eastern European wh0re. Good on those working girls for getting a leg up!

LOL,  Worms throws gun!  

[Strike 5,214]

16 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

This is like a greatest hits album 

He thinks Hitlery was THE BEST candidate to ever run for President.

[Strike 5,214]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

And melania was an Eastern European wh0re. Good on those working girls for getting a leg up!

Assuming that's true, what office is she running for?

[IGotWorms 4,057]

Just now, Strike said:

Assuming that's true, what office is she running for?

It was a joke, dumb dumb. Kamala wasn’t no escort 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,949]

Hunter Biden is far worse.  

[Voltaire 5,202]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

There’s no evidence whatsoever that it was for a promotion or that their relationship was for political gain. It’s a sexist accusation. 

That's what I thought about Anna Nicole Smith and J. Howard Marshall too.

[The Real timschochet 6,441]

8 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

That's what I thought about Anna Nicole Smith and J. Howard Marshall too.

You were correct to believe that relationship wasn’t for political gain. 

[jerryskids 6,573]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

She didn’t “work as an escort”. Why do you spread this foolishness? 

True.  She was too busy working at McDonalds.   

[Fnord 2,051]

2 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

How about when a party is subverting democracy by selecting your representative instead of you voting for that person?  Especially after spending 4 years complaining about the other guy trying to that very thing?

You'd think people that appreciate the constitution could understand that. We've seen that clearly you don't.

It was not a subversion of any kind, dope. Back up your bullshit and supply a link to where what the DNC did was illegal, fraudulent, or not allowed. I'll happily admit being wrong. Until then, don't pretend you're some sort of high minded centrist patriot when you're going to vote for a convicted felon that yes, ACTUALLY attempted to subvert democracy. 

[The Real timschochet 6,441]

18 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

True.  She was too busy working at McDonalds.   

During college. What’s your point? 
 

Do you guys really think these put downs are going to work? They’re backfiring like crazy. Kamala’s public approval is going through the roof. Meanwhile your guy is going down like Frazier because of his association with racists like Loomer (the point of this thread which you people keep trying to avoid.) 

[The Real timschochet 6,441]

Just now, Fnord said:

It was not a subversion of any kind, dope. Back up your bullshit and supply a link to where what the DNC did was illegal, fraudulent, or not allowed. I'll happily admit being wrong. Until then, don't pretend you're some sort of high minded centrist patriot when you're going to vote for a convicted felon that yes, ACTUALLY attempted to subvert democracy. 

They’re just so ignorant about this, but it appears to be deliberate. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,241]

Democracy is at stake. Are we back to that??? says the team voting for the only candidate never to win a primary vote 

[Fnord 2,051]

2 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Democracy is at stake. Are we back to that??? says the team voting for the only candidate never to win a primary vote 

Do you guys ever get tired of being gullible, lazy, and unable to understand details and nuance? Nobody but the MAGA idiots has a problem with how it went down, and the only reason you do is that you know Harris will be a lot tougher to beat. None of you truly GAF about morality or legality if you plan on voting for Trump. At least man up and own it.

[The Real timschochet 6,441]

5 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Democracy is at stake. Are we back to that??? says the team voting for the only candidate never to win a primary vote 

It is at stake. We’re not back to it, we never left it. Trump is a threat to democracy for several reasons which have all been stated numerous times. Harris isn’t. This ain’t rocket science, wake the fock up. 

[BrahmaBulls 628]

3 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

There’s no evidence whatsoever that it was for a promotion or that their relationship was for political gain. It’s a sexist accusation. 

Dumb a$$

[Fnord 2,051]

4 minutes ago, BrahmaBulls said:

Dumb a$$

I bet you were the captain of your HS debate team with these killer skills. Such sharp, witty retorts!

ETA: Please don't start following me around like you do with Tim and general. They're much nicer than me.

[jerryskids 6,573]

16 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

During college. What’s your point? 
 

Do you guys really think these put downs are going to work? They’re backfiring like crazy. Kamala’s public approval is going through the roof. Meanwhile your guy is going down like Frazier because of his association with racists like Loomer (the point of this thread which you people keep trying to avoid.) 

Sure they work.  In this case, it points out that she is full of shiot with her "growing up middle class." 

Also you lied about her approval going "through the roof."  It has almost caught up with her disapproval, tho.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/

You aren't a serious person.

[Fnord 2,051]

3 hours ago, 5-Points said:

 

What is The Association Fallacy In Behavioral Economics?

What Is The Association Fallacy?

Implications Of The Association Fallacy

Research On The Association Fallacy

Link

What's your point?

[jerryskids 6,573]

12 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Do you guys ever get tired of being gullible, lazy, and unable to understand details and nuance? Nobody but the MAGA idiots has a problem with how it went down, and the only reason you do is that you know Harris will be a lot tougher to beat. None of you truly GAF about morality or legality if you plan on voting for Trump. At least man up and own it.

Really?  Nobody but MAGA people are upset that they voted for Joe Biden, he was the nominee, then an unknown cabal of people decided that Kamala would be the nominee?  

Do you recall, I dunno, the day before Kamala was anointed, when she was considered so bad that you guys ran a borderline dead guy instead of her?  And now we are supposed to believe she is the second coming?

[Fnord 2,051]

4 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Sure they work.  In this case, it points out that she is full of shiot with her "growing up middle class." 

Also you lied about her approval going "through the roof."  It has almost caught up with her disapproval, tho.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/

You aren't a serious person.

Did you happen to take a look at Trump's disapproval rating in that link? He only wishes people hated her as much as they do him.

[Fnord 2,051]

7 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Really?  Nobody but MAGA people are upset that they voted for Joe Biden, he was the nominee, then an unknown cabal of people decided that Kamala would be the nominee?  

Do you recall, I dunno, the day before Kamala was anointed, when she was considered so bad that you guys ran a borderline dead guy instead of her?  And now we are supposed to believe she is the second coming?

UNKNOWN CABAL!!!

Oh fuk, we are screwed!

Oh wait, the UNKNOWN CABAL was actually the DNC, donors, and the delegates that had previously pledged to Biden. This is not a hill a "serious person" wants to die on.

I've been very clear about my disdain for all of the candidates and was ready to not vote after Biden's debate. He's gone, Kamala's not braindead, and Trump is still Trump. She's not the second coming of anything (but theres definitely a plethora of jokes you can make with a similar setup line). But she sure has my unenthusiastic "lesser of two evils" vote.