In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 06 2016 14:39 Aquanim wrote: ...we would not have an interesting discussion on that topic.
Let me just mimic your quoting style for a moment. I've found time and time again the partisan attachment to Clinton is the best explanation for making the choice that her record just contains small mistakes or lapses in judgment. I say this only to illustrate, and feel free to snip all justification for my conclusions out of future quote trains, that if nobody can find common ground on a very lengthy and transparent record, the possibility of good debate vanishes. I can absolutely see your point that no further enlightening discussion seems possible on that topic. I just wish the most active arguers from the left + Show Spoiler +
(some on right too, but they already get massive scorn)
would acknowledge the glaring and massive flaws of BOTH candidates, which may or may not be individually and subjectively disqualifying, to preserve the idea that productive discussion can occur on ANY topic whatsoever. There's no use talking forestry at all if one party thinks million acre fires might just be a very plucky isolated square kilometer sending up disproportionate smoke.
On November 06 2016 13:49 PassiveAce wrote: they came over legally because cuban exiles dont have to go through normal immigration channels -_-
Which is irrelevant to my answer and the question it pertains to. What's your non-sequitur point here?
It's not a non sequitur. You're just really bad at connecting the dots apparently.
Cubans get super special treatment. If you were fleeing political violence from any other South American country you'd have to go through the extremely tedious process of us immigration or be illegal.
Um, yes it is, and again your point is irrelevant. The question asked why are Cuban-Americans going for Trump. It's a fact that cuban-americans are pretty loudly anti-illegal immigration (and of course a myriad of other reasons *cough* Clintons and Elian Gonzalez). The reason for it is irrelevant. Is there something that you fail to comprehend here?
You don't seem to get his point. It's ridiculous to take an anti-illegal immigration stance if you were granted a free pass to immigrate in the first place.
No, I understand perfectly. You don't hear what I'm saying - your points are irrelevant to why they're supporting Trump. What does their reason(s) for their immigration stance matter? The fact is they're supporting Trump because one of his major selling points to his constituents is his immigration policies, which are attractive to Cuban-Americans. The reason for why they hold that PoV is irrelevant. Do you understand?
It just seems a little unbelievable that someone who has made the exact same experiences that illegal immigrants have made takes such a strong and facetious position against people that are right now in the same situation. I'd have guessed that normalisation with the Cuban government is what drives older Ex Cubans to Trump but immigration just seems weird.
It's not weird once you understand that the majority of Cuban-Americans came over as asylum seekers fleeing political repression (plus death), not for economic reasons like the majority of immigrants do today. Besides, the reason for why they hold their position is irrelevant. The question asked is why Cuban-Americans are voting for Trump. Immigration is one big reason. Take it up with them, not me sheesh.
By the way if we want to start throwing normative statements around, I find the heterodox positions on immigration weird. As someone who favors no State-borders, but Lockean property borders, the "open border" give everyone who comes a vote and at the same time erode the rights of property owners is weird to me. At the same time the throw up a wall and turn our country into East Germany is likewise weird. We all have our perspective on what we find weird.
On November 06 2016 14:39 Aquanim wrote: ...we would not have an interesting discussion on that topic.
Let me just mimic your quoting style for a moment. I've found time and time again the partisan attachment to Clinton is the best explanation for making the choice that her record just contains small mistakes or lapses in judgment. I say this only to illustrate, and feel free to snip all justification for my conclusions out of future quote trains, that if nobody can find common ground on a very lengthy and transparent record, the possibility of good debate vanishes. I can absolutely see your point that no further enlightening discussion seems possible on that topic. I just wish the most active arguers from the left + Show Spoiler +
(some on right too, but they already get massive scorn)
would acknowledge the glaring and massive flaws of BOTH candidates, which may or may not be individually and subjectively disqualifying, to preserve the idea that productive discussion can occur on ANY topic whatsoever. There's no use talking forestry at all if one party thinks million acre fires might just be a very plucky isolated square kilometer sending up disproportionate smoke.
Nothing in the rest of your post justified your statement (that Clinton has engaged in frequent and severe misconduct with respect to the Foundation, and that any 'unattached observer' should agree with you), you are stating that opinion as fact a priori. I did not wish to discuss the rest of your post, and the rest of your post did not give further justification to your assertion in that sentence, so therefore I did not quote it.
I will omit my opinion as to which of us is misrepresenting our opinions as fact more than the other, since I'm certain that discussion is worthless to have.
To continue the analogy, I think that the "plucky small fire" isn't what's sending up the disproportionate smoke at all. The Republicans have been going after the Clinton name for how long now? It's unsurprising they've managed to make something happen after all this time, no matter how much truth there is to the allegations.
EDIT: And to widen the analogy...arguing over whether Clinton's problems are a million acre fire or a small one is pretty petty when by comparision Trump has more in common with a supervolcano, or (in the worst case of his small hand syndrome setting off a nuclear war) the sun going supernova. The left would probably spend more time discussing Clinton's flaws if the US and the world didn't have much bigger problems with the alternative. Drawing equivalences between Clinton's flaws as a candidate and Trump's is inherently disingenuous FMPOV.
I've found time and time again the partisan attachment to the Republicans/right-wing/alt-right is the best explanation for making the choice that her record contains more than small mistakes or lapses in judgment.
I just wish the most active arguers from the right would acknowledge the possibility that their opposing candidate DOESN'T have massive and glaring flaws, no matter how much they might wish to find some.
On November 06 2016 14:39 Aquanim wrote: ...we would not have an interesting discussion on that topic.
Let me just mimic your quoting style for a moment. I've found time and time again the partisan attachment to Clinton is the best explanation for making the choice that her record just contains small mistakes or lapses in judgment. I say this only to illustrate, and feel free to snip all justification for my conclusions out of future quote trains, that if nobody can find common ground on a very lengthy and transparent record, the possibility of good debate vanishes. I can absolutely see your point that no further enlightening discussion seems possible on that topic. I just wish the most active arguers from the left + Show Spoiler +
(some on right too, but they already get massive scorn)
would acknowledge the glaring and massive flaws of BOTH candidates, which may or may not be individually and subjectively disqualifying, to preserve the idea that productive discussion can occur on ANY topic whatsoever. There's no use talking forestry at all if one party thinks million acre fires might just be a very plucky isolated square kilometer sending up disproportionate smoke.
I really don't get why so many of the leftist/liberal posters go so far out of their way to fellate the Clintons. The Clintons are patently vile by any measure and should be readily acknowledged as such. I certainly understand the argument that the Clintons are comparatively better than Trump and can respect it, but the degree to which some posters stick their heads in the sand regarding who they're supporting simply boggles the mind.
This discussion again, I must have seen it a dozen times
Danglars or xDaunt: Clinton Foudnation is super corrupt and the Clintons are incompetent at hiding their corruption Anyone that hasn't had this dance before: Can you give some specifics? Danglars and/or xDaunt: Wow, you leftists are so biased for questioning my vague accusations
On November 06 2016 14:39 Aquanim wrote: ...we would not have an interesting discussion on that topic.
Let me just mimic your quoting style for a moment. I've found time and time again the partisan attachment to Clinton is the best explanation for making the choice that her record just contains small mistakes or lapses in judgment. I say this only to illustrate, and feel free to snip all justification for my conclusions out of future quote trains, that if nobody can find common ground on a very lengthy and transparent record, the possibility of good debate vanishes. I can absolutely see your point that no further enlightening discussion seems possible on that topic. I just wish the most active arguers from the left + Show Spoiler +
(some on right too, but they already get massive scorn)
would acknowledge the glaring and massive flaws of BOTH candidates, which may or may not be individually and subjectively disqualifying, to preserve the idea that productive discussion can occur on ANY topic whatsoever. There's no use talking forestry at all if one party thinks million acre fires might just be a very plucky isolated square kilometer sending up disproportionate smoke.
On November 06 2016 14:39 Aquanim wrote: ...we would not have an interesting discussion on that topic.
Let me just mimic your quoting style for a moment. I've found time and time again the partisan attachment to Clinton is the best explanation for making the choice that her record just contains small mistakes or lapses in judgment. I say this only to illustrate, and feel free to snip all justification for my conclusions out of future quote trains, that if nobody can find common ground on a very lengthy and transparent record, the possibility of good debate vanishes. I can absolutely see your point that no further enlightening discussion seems possible on that topic. I just wish the most active arguers from the left + Show Spoiler +
(some on right too, but they already get massive scorn)
would acknowledge the glaring and massive flaws of BOTH candidates, which may or may not be individually and subjectively disqualifying, to preserve the idea that productive discussion can occur on ANY topic whatsoever. There's no use talking forestry at all if one party thinks million acre fires might just be a very plucky isolated square kilometer sending up disproportionate smoke.
I really don't get why so many of the leftist/liberal posters go so far out of their way to fellate the Clintons. The Clintons are patently vile by any measure and should be readily acknowledged as such. I certainly understand the argument that the Clintons are comparatively better than Trump and can respect it, but the degree to which some posters stick their heads in the sand regarding who they're supporting simply boggles the mind.
That's just like, your opinion and view of the world.
Yeah, but after reading the article, I can't really blame him... that huffpost writer made me feel stupid to the stomach. Man I wish the huffpost model was the more realistic and I could stop fretting about the victory of stupidity... but man they did not do a good job of convincing me against the 538 model. <rant> I am not even sure what is more upsetting in it. The fact that he hammers away on Silver for punditry in the primaries, and how that invalidates his model now, while Silver already admitted that his punditry got the better of him then, but his model was accurate then, and is the same model used now, and it is not his punditry saying trump has 1/3 chance to win. Or the fact that the writer quotes Silvers explanation, and then fails to refute them, just says ~oh he is just guessing lol, well if he is correct that was just a lucky guess but the fact that he guesses demonstrably better than us still means our model (which is of course a guess itself) is better somehow....??? The Ryan Grim article is even worse... "I get why Silver wants to hedge. It’s not easy to sit here and tell you that Clinton has a 98 percent chance of winning. Everything inside us screams out that life is too full of uncertainty, that being so sure is just a fantasy. But that’s what the numbers say." no, the numbers actually say there are way more undecided voters than before, hence more uncertainty, what the fuck? Seriously I almost never read the opinion pieces mentioned in this thread, but when I do, it is like reading the_donald with more eloquent writing. </rant>
On November 06 2016 14:39 Aquanim wrote: ...we would not have an interesting discussion on that topic.
Let me just mimic your quoting style for a moment. I've found time and time again the partisan attachment to Clinton is the best explanation for making the choice that her record just contains small mistakes or lapses in judgment. I say this only to illustrate, and feel free to snip all justification for my conclusions out of future quote trains, that if nobody can find common ground on a very lengthy and transparent record, the possibility of good debate vanishes. I can absolutely see your point that no further enlightening discussion seems possible on that topic. I just wish the most active arguers from the left + Show Spoiler +
(some on right too, but they already get massive scorn)
would acknowledge the glaring and massive flaws of BOTH candidates, which may or may not be individually and subjectively disqualifying, to preserve the idea that productive discussion can occur on ANY topic whatsoever. There's no use talking forestry at all if one party thinks million acre fires might just be a very plucky isolated square kilometer sending up disproportionate smoke.
I really don't get why so many of the leftist/liberal posters go so far out of their way to fellate the Clintons. The Clintons are patently vile by any measure and should be readily acknowledged as such. I certainly understand the argument that the Clintons are comparatively better than Trump and can respect it, but the degree to which some posters stick their heads in the sand regarding who they're supporting simply boggles the mind.
That's just like, your opinion and view of the world.
Seems to be a theme here that not sharing one's opinion in this election is "burrying his head in the sand".
(But that's interesting because I myself feel that people who think well of Trump are delusionnal.)
Clinton seems to me like a decent person, tough as a nail (too much for my taste), a complete government nerd (i don't think i would have much to talk about with her) and someone incredibly determined. But vile, i don't see how.
So, accusations of being delusionnal and x being vile are pointless. xDaunt hates Clinton. Got that a ling time ago.
I'm especially amused by things like "We'll see who's right in two days"... No, we won't. Who wins Florida in the end doesn't really inform us on who had the right model regarding who has the better chances of winning Florida... Believe it or not, it's possible for an event that has 47% chance of happening to happen. That tends to happen 47% of the time.
On November 06 2016 18:48 Nebuchad wrote: I'm especially amused by things like "We'll see who's right in two days"... No, we won't. Who wins Florida in the end doesn't really inform us on who had the right model regarding who has the better chances of winning Florida... Believe it or not, it's possible for an event that has 47% chance of happening to happen. That tends to happen 47% of the time.
That might be why the HP article ends up like this:
We’ll have to wait and see what happens. Maybe Silver will be right come Election Day ― Trump will win Florida, and we’ll all be in for a very long night. Or our forecast will be right, she’ll win nationally by 5 or 6, and we can all turn in early.
If he’s right, though, it was just a good guess ― a fortunate “trend line adjustment” ― not a mathematical forecast. If you want to put your faith in the numbers, you can relax. She’s got this.
I have no opinion, not being a statistician but it looks to me that adjusting polls based on recurring "house effect" that showed consistantly is a good idea? The HP dude seems to think that this is disqualifying, and i don't really get why. As long as the correction is supported by solid data.
On November 06 2016 18:48 Nebuchad wrote: I'm especially amused by things like "We'll see who's right in two days"... No, we won't. Who wins Florida in the end doesn't really inform us on who had the right model regarding who has the better chances of winning Florida... Believe it or not, it's possible for an event that has 47% chance of happening to happen. That tends to happen 47% of the time.
That might be why the HP article ends up like this:
We’ll have to wait and see what happens. Maybe Silver will be right come Election Day ― Trump will win Florida, and we’ll all be in for a very long night. Or our forecast will be right, she’ll win nationally by 5 or 6, and we can all turn in early.
If he’s right, though, it was just a good guess ― a fortunate “trend line adjustment” ― not a mathematical forecast. If you want to put your faith in the numbers, you can relax. She’s got this.
Yeah but that's what I'm criticizing. The assumption made there is that 538's model is good when Trump wins Florida, and bad when he doesn't. That's not necessarily true at all.
On November 06 2016 18:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 06 2016 18:48 Nebuchad wrote: I'm especially amused by things like "We'll see who's right in two days"... No, we won't. Who wins Florida in the end doesn't really inform us on who had the right model regarding who has the better chances of winning Florida... Believe it or not, it's possible for an event that has 47% chance of happening to happen. That tends to happen 47% of the time.
That might be why the HP article ends up like this:
We’ll have to wait and see what happens. Maybe Silver will be right come Election Day ― Trump will win Florida, and we’ll all be in for a very long night. Or our forecast will be right, she’ll win nationally by 5 or 6, and we can all turn in early.
If he’s right, though, it was just a good guess ― a fortunate “trend line adjustment” ― not a mathematical forecast. If you want to put your faith in the numbers, you can relax. She’s got this.
Yeah but that's what I'm criticizing. The assumption made there is that 538's model is good when Trump wins Florida, and bad when he doesn't. That's not necessarily true at all.
Read again. He says that if Silver is right about Florida it's just a good guess and lucky adjustments.
In my book that means that for him, T winning Florida doesn't make a difference because 538 is twisting the number it uses.
But regardless, thing is that if one model gives 35% to an event to happen and the other one gives 5% and that event happens, it is more likely (not certain but more likely) that the first model is better.
On November 06 2016 18:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 06 2016 18:48 Nebuchad wrote: I'm especially amused by things like "We'll see who's right in two days"... No, we won't. Who wins Florida in the end doesn't really inform us on who had the right model regarding who has the better chances of winning Florida... Believe it or not, it's possible for an event that has 47% chance of happening to happen. That tends to happen 47% of the time.
That might be why the HP article ends up like this:
We’ll have to wait and see what happens. Maybe Silver will be right come Election Day ― Trump will win Florida, and we’ll all be in for a very long night. Or our forecast will be right, she’ll win nationally by 5 or 6, and we can all turn in early.
If he’s right, though, it was just a good guess ― a fortunate “trend line adjustment” ― not a mathematical forecast. If you want to put your faith in the numbers, you can relax. She’s got this.
Yeah but that's what I'm criticizing. The assumption made there is that 538's model is good when Trump wins Florida, and bad when he doesn't. That's not necessarily true at all.
Read again. He says that if Silver is right about Florida it's just a good guess and lucky adjustments.
In my book that means that for him, T winning Florida doesn't make a difference because 538 is twisting the number it uses.
I am contesting the assumption that who ends up winning Florida informs us on who had the better model when it comes to chances of winning Florida.
On November 06 2016 19:09 Biff The Understudy wrote: But regardless, thing is that if one model gives 35% to an event to happen and the other one gives 5% and that event happens, it is more likely (not certain but more likely) that the first model is better.
Assuming that a 35% prediction is likely better than a 5% one based not on context and/or methodology but simply on the numbers themselves makes no sense. You're basically saying that most events have a higher than 20% chance of happening, there is no basis for that, there's an infinite amount on both sides.
On November 06 2016 19:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 06 2016 19:01 Nebuchad wrote:
On November 06 2016 18:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 06 2016 18:48 Nebuchad wrote: I'm especially amused by things like "We'll see who's right in two days"... No, we won't. Who wins Florida in the end doesn't really inform us on who had the right model regarding who has the better chances of winning Florida... Believe it or not, it's possible for an event that has 47% chance of happening to happen. That tends to happen 47% of the time.
That might be why the HP article ends up like this:
We’ll have to wait and see what happens. Maybe Silver will be right come Election Day ― Trump will win Florida, and we’ll all be in for a very long night. Or our forecast will be right, she’ll win nationally by 5 or 6, and we can all turn in early.
If he’s right, though, it was just a good guess ― a fortunate “trend line adjustment” ― not a mathematical forecast. If you want to put your faith in the numbers, you can relax. She’s got this.
Yeah but that's what I'm criticizing. The assumption made there is that 538's model is good when Trump wins Florida, and bad when he doesn't. That's not necessarily true at all.
Read again. He says that if Silver is right about Florida it's just a good guess and lucky adjustments.
In my book that means that for him, T winning Florida doesn't make a difference because 538 is twisting the number it uses.
I am contesting the assumption that who ends up winning Florida informs us on who had the better model when it comes to chances of winning Florida.
Speaking in absolutes, you can't say much. But let's take it to extremes: let's say I predict Florida goes to Trump with 95% likelihood, and your model predicts the inverse. Trump wins Florida. Do you agree that we can update our degree of belief in whose model is better based on this?
EPT
