Hopefully a few of them are high school kids...it would be nice to know they're watching this kind of stuff. You should have seen the live chat comments durning this speech. Not that anyone said anything mean or rude, but there was a lot of chatter about the mic girl and her boobs. I'll confess, I may have made a commented myself. I couldn't help it, I happened to tune in just after 41 minutes in when they cut to slightly a wider shot of her. I think someone in charge of shooting the video must have seen the comments because they didn't go back to that wide shot again. The camera man (or woman) probably got the hand signal for "less boob". Thank god there were no Gillette reps in the live chat, they would've scolded and shamed some people for sure. "Not cool, bro." (What happens to live chat comments once the live stream is over? Do they become regular youtube comments under the video?)
And chaste. For some reason no one cares about that. I won’t lie, I married a beautiful conservative woman, but it wasn’t her beauty that drew me in, it was that she didn’t spread her legs for random strangers each weekend. To this day, I watch dudes fail with my wife’s friends, imagining that if they say something conservative or about liking Trump that they’ll get her into bed after 2 or 3 dates. Some of them have even got up and left her sitting in a restaurant after she made mention of loving Jesus. So don’t waste your time with pickup lines or faking interest in her as a potential wife, because they have finely tuned bullshit detectors. If you want a Grade A, top of the shelf wife, you’re going to need to earn it. If she gives it up on the third date, she’s probably not an actual conservative.
The White House should get someone like this to show up at a press briefing and give one of these speeches! Like why not?! Make it unannounced and hold a quick Q and A at the end to destroy the media in their face!!!
Knowles is leaps and bounds better than Shapiro is. Which is at the core of why Ben takes every opportunity to joke about Michaels integrity whilst Michael hardly ever responds in kind. It has nothing to do with Ben being his boss.
Did you go to Fox Lane High School???? We’re in Bedford Hills & my Daughter was a Sophomore at the time this happened. I donated to that Teacher’s Fund Raiser! What a SMALL world!! Good riddance Chris Manno!! And I bought your Book, Not even knowing this (It is Brilliant, by the way) at the time!! I’m a Huge Fan of yours! Keep up the Great work!!
Prejudice is all about probability and first impressions. At least a million people in most metro areas, and we can't all be friends, therefore we must use good algorithms to make sure which people are worthwhile, without going one by one. Making connections that fit our personal standards is how we enhance our quality of lives. It's not inherently evil.
Warren is by no means native american but cmon atleast quote the real numbers, 1/1024th was the high end of their estimation. I know 1024 sounds alot bigger than 512 but are we not supposed to be all about the facts and not misrepresenting them?
You cannot always recite all the facts about a subject. You should not when a summary will do. For example, it's not really necessary to also bring up how even the test she took is skewed, because it includes Southern and Central American ancestry as evidence of NA ancestry. So *maybe* 1/1024, if that.
@@josephalbatross5961 Probably includes central/south america because the states go far enough south to include those lineages. Seems like wild speculation to me. Even if the test is bad as you say, i haven't seen her full results. Does her % even include central/south american? if not than it's irrelevant. You're right that a summary will do, the point I was making is that we should avoid always quoting the far end of the margin of error that best supports our arguments. It was 1/512-1/1024th. You can quote the 1/512 and still argue shes not even close to native.
@@trushbetold Sure. To persuade my opponent, I'll use sources my opponent can't dismiss. If I argue 6th gen. means nothing, then certainly 10th gen. means nothing, too. If I only argue against 10th gen. ancestry, my opponent can argue 6th gen. > 10th gen. & does have meaning. But you forget that is also very persuasive to force your opponent to argue their case on only what they can prove. i.e. make them admit that, at most, there is only evidence tending to show the possibility of 10th gen. ancestry. p.s. Yes, in the methodology, it explained how what counts as "Native American" segments is already an approximation from sampling that included S.A. / non-Native American pedigree.
