|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
United States42775 Posts
On March 01 2017 02:41 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 02:31 farvacola wrote:On March 01 2017 02:25 Sermokala wrote:On March 01 2017 02:21 On_Slaught wrote:On March 01 2017 02:08 Sermokala wrote:
People are ignoring the popular vote beacuse the popular vote doesn't matter. Of course it matters when the issue being discussed is how polling 'got it so wrong.' When the popular vote shows that most polling was correct, it sheds some obvious insight into the discussion. Plus the whole mandate thing farvacola mentioned. Legislative mandates belong to the legislative branch. To apply weird qualifiers on one that clearly applies to another makes logical sense. The polls had nothing to do with the popular vote. The percentage victory was based on polls in a state by state margin. Any look at any poll numbers during the campaign would explain this to you. Dude, you're clearly way out of your depth here given the clumsy way you are describing things; the mandate as a concept applies to every office, both elected and appointed, in a variety of ways, and while it'd be correct to temper any legislative criticism of the executive's mandate on grounds that legislators aren't popular themselves, that only goes so far because you're comparing a lack of a polling mandate with a lack of a popular mandate set against an electoral win. The extent to which anyone can actually substantiate a claim to having public support for their political agenda is precisely the stuff of getting bills passed a la bicameralism and presentment. The mandate is a made up term to argue about how much political capital the president has. India has almost never had a real executive mandate but they're not a tire fire country. It has no real effect on anything in the president's power and the president doesn't have to care beacuse the world will be different in 4 years when he's up for office again. Clearly public support for a political agenda is what the fuck gets them into office. No law passed 51 49 is any different then a law passed 98 2.
Dude, India is a Parliamentary system. Talking about the powers of the President of India doesn't make you look smart. The Prime Minister of India leads their executive.
|
On March 01 2017 02:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 02:41 Sermokala wrote:On March 01 2017 02:31 farvacola wrote:On March 01 2017 02:25 Sermokala wrote:On March 01 2017 02:21 On_Slaught wrote:On March 01 2017 02:08 Sermokala wrote:
People are ignoring the popular vote beacuse the popular vote doesn't matter. Of course it matters when the issue being discussed is how polling 'got it so wrong.' When the popular vote shows that most polling was correct, it sheds some obvious insight into the discussion. Plus the whole mandate thing farvacola mentioned. Legislative mandates belong to the legislative branch. To apply weird qualifiers on one that clearly applies to another makes logical sense. The polls had nothing to do with the popular vote. The percentage victory was based on polls in a state by state margin. Any look at any poll numbers during the campaign would explain this to you. Dude, you're clearly way out of your depth here given the clumsy way you are describing things; the mandate as a concept applies to every office, both elected and appointed, in a variety of ways, and while it'd be correct to temper any legislative criticism of the executive's mandate on grounds that legislators aren't popular themselves, that only goes so far because you're comparing a lack of a polling mandate with a lack of a popular mandate set against an electoral win. The extent to which anyone can actually substantiate a claim to having public support for their political agenda is precisely the stuff of getting bills passed a la bicameralism and presentment. The mandate is a made up term to argue about how much political capital the president has. India has almost never had a real executive mandate but they're not a tire fire country. It has no real effect on anything in the president's power and the president doesn't have to care beacuse the world will be different in 4 years when he's up for office again. Clearly public support for a political agenda is what the fuck gets them into office. No law passed 51 49 is any different then a law passed 98 2. Dude, India is a Parliamentary system. Talking about the powers of the President of India doesn't make you look smart. The Prime Minister of India leads their executive.
I didn't say the president of India I said executive. I'd compare prime minister of India to be the same as president in both being executives.
|
On March 01 2017 02:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 02:41 Sermokala wrote:On March 01 2017 02:31 farvacola wrote:On March 01 2017 02:25 Sermokala wrote:On March 01 2017 02:21 On_Slaught wrote:On March 01 2017 02:08 Sermokala wrote:
People are ignoring the popular vote beacuse the popular vote doesn't matter. Of course it matters when the issue being discussed is how polling 'got it so wrong.' When the popular vote shows that most polling was correct, it sheds some obvious insight into the discussion. Plus the whole mandate thing farvacola mentioned. Legislative mandates belong to the legislative branch. To apply weird qualifiers on one that clearly applies to another makes logical sense. The polls had nothing to do with the popular vote. The percentage victory was based on polls in a state by state margin. Any look at any poll numbers during the campaign would explain this to you. Dude, you're clearly way out of your depth here given the clumsy way you are describing things; the mandate as a concept applies to every office, both elected and appointed, in a variety of ways, and while it'd be correct to temper any legislative criticism of the executive's mandate on grounds that legislators aren't popular themselves, that only goes so far because you're comparing a lack of a polling mandate with a lack of a popular mandate set against an electoral win. The extent to which anyone can actually substantiate a claim to having public support for their political agenda is precisely the stuff of getting bills passed a la bicameralism and presentment. The mandate is a made up term to argue about how much political capital the president has. India has almost never had a real executive mandate but they're not a tire fire country. It has no real effect on anything in the president's power and the president doesn't have to care beacuse the world will be different in 4 years when he's up for office again. Clearly public support for a political agenda is what the fuck gets them into office. N o law passed 51 49 is any different then a law passed 98 2. Pretty sure those numbers have impacts on the midterm elections and so on.
Even then it means nothing. Obama's 2008 mandate had nothing to do with what happened in 2010. Bush winning his second more then his first did nothing to stop 2006 from happening.
|
That you've retreated to poorly describing India in support of your clumsy depiction of the US political system suggests that you've recognized the infirm ground on which you stand, so kudos for that. However, the point remains that "the popular vote doesn't matter" is outright false.
|
On March 01 2017 02:49 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 02:43 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2017 02:41 Sermokala wrote:On March 01 2017 02:31 farvacola wrote:On March 01 2017 02:25 Sermokala wrote:On March 01 2017 02:21 On_Slaught wrote:On March 01 2017 02:08 Sermokala wrote:
People are ignoring the popular vote beacuse the popular vote doesn't matter. Of course it matters when the issue being discussed is how polling 'got it so wrong.' When the popular vote shows that most polling was correct, it sheds some obvious insight into the discussion. Plus the whole mandate thing farvacola mentioned. Legislative mandates belong to the legislative branch. To apply weird qualifiers on one that clearly applies to another makes logical sense. The polls had nothing to do with the popular vote. The percentage victory was based on polls in a state by state margin. Any look at any poll numbers during the campaign would explain this to you. Dude, you're clearly way out of your depth here given the clumsy way you are describing things; the mandate as a concept applies to every office, both elected and appointed, in a variety of ways, and while it'd be correct to temper any legislative criticism of the executive's mandate on grounds that legislators aren't popular themselves, that only goes so far because you're comparing a lack of a polling mandate with a lack of a popular mandate set against an electoral win. The extent to which anyone can actually substantiate a claim to having public support for their political agenda is precisely the stuff of getting bills passed a la bicameralism and presentment. The mandate is a made up term to argue about how much political capital the president has. India has almost never had a real executive mandate but they're not a tire fire country. It has no real effect on anything in the president's power and the president doesn't have to care beacuse the world will be different in 4 years when he's up for office again. Clearly public support for a political agenda is what the fuck gets them into office. N o law passed 51 49 is any different then a law passed 98 2. Pretty sure those numbers have impacts on the midterm elections and so on. Even then it means nothing. Obama's 2008 mandate had nothing to do with what happened in 2010. Bush winning his second more then his first did nothing to stop 2006 from happening.
All votes and outcomes are meaningless, got it. Numbers don't matter and cannot be seen as a factor to how people will respond in the future. This seems appealingly simplistic, I can see how it will catch on.
|
wtf is this argument even about? What are you trying to prove Sermokala?
|
He is attempting to make an argument that the way someone wins does not impact their ability to govern. As long as a law was passed, it doesn't matter who voted for it or their reasons for doing so.
Reality has a very different stance on the subject.
|
On March 01 2017 02:11 MyTHicaL wrote:
How did this thread go back to why or by how much the polls were wrong? Is it not more pertinent to discuss this absurd accusation of Obama now orchestrating the protests around the US/Globe in response to this moron's policies? Or are you guys just sick of that too now since he seems to spout some random BS every other day which takes head line news world wide by storm? I suppose polling is easier to understand than Trump logic..
It's not random. It's very much intentional.
“Donald is a believer in the big-lie theory,” his lawyer had told me. “If you say something again and again, people will believe you.”
From the same article: “Give them the old Trump bullshit,” he told the architect Der Scutt before a presentation of the Trump Tower design at a press conference in 1980. “Tell them it is going to be a million square feet, sixty-eight stories.” “I don’t lie, Donald,” the architect replied.
And the gem: "Last April, perhaps in a surge of Czech nationalism, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed. Kennedy now guards a copy of My New Order in a closet at his office, as if it were a grenade. Hitler’s speeches, from his earliest days up through the Phony War of 1939, reveal his extraordinary ability as a master propagandist."
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2015/07/donald-ivana-trump-divorce-prenup-marie-brenner
He has a very specific plan involving very specific people in his administration. I promise you that.
|
The big lie is a well documented political tactic that has very real data to back it up. People's collective memory is easy to manipulate through attrition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
There have been numerous tests over the decades that show saying an untrue thing over and over will reduce peoples resistance to believing the untrue thing. And it is more effective the more people by into the lie. The three million illegal votes lie will never go away. There will always be a section of the population that believes that is 100% fact.
And the US population is not immune to this tactic. McCarthy employed it to great effect. Nixon did to a lesser extent.
|
United States42775 Posts
When you correct the myths through carefully prepared evidence and well reasoned arguments it reduces the belief in the myth for a short time but actually increases it in the long term.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/12/vaccine-myth-busting-can-backfire/383700/
Both political scientists, Nyhan and Reifler have spent the past several years studying what they call the “backfire effect,” or the idea that when presented with information that contradicts their closely-held beliefs, people will become more convinced, not less, that they’re in the right. In one study, when staunch conservatives read information refuting the idea that the U.S. found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they tended to believe more firmly than before that it was true; the researchers saw similar effects in studies correcting the notion that President Obama is Muslim and the claim that “death panels” were a part of healthcare reform.
|
So basically there is absolutely 0 chance of cleaning up bullshit that gets spewed by people like President Trump?
|
Gotta increase the illiteracy rate somehow, that'll make us immune to propaganda
|
The analogy to telling teenagers not to do something is on point. People want to touch the stove and getting them to not do it is very hard. And they will resent you for it afterwords.
On March 01 2017 03:22 Dromar wrote:
So basically there is absolutely 0 chance of cleaning up bullshit that gets spewed by people like President Trump?
Yes. The more he lies, the more that will become reality for some section of the population. People are very resistant to admitting they were fooled, especially in public. As exhibit A, I present a recent time the US touched the stove and believed a con-man. Spoiler: a lot of people died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Brinkley
It took decades before people stopped believing what they man was shilling.
Do not believe the lie that the internet has been spinning for so long, that words don’t matter. That we are smarter than this and we can't be fooled. That people will make informed choices based on rational reasoning and evidence. That people won’t buy into this stuff or believe that a wall can somehow prevent people from crossing a border when it can’t even stop the flow of water(water just goes around). Every conman hopes to find someone who is convinced they won't fall for it.
|
On March 01 2017 03:22 Dromar wrote:
So basically there is absolutely 0 chance of cleaning up bullshit that gets spewed by people like President Trump?
That's a ten trillion dollar question right there. If anybody knows a reliable method to cure somebody of hostile binary thinking, I'm all ears.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I think it's clear that Trump has an alternate reality resilient to being convinced of being wrong.
|
On March 01 2017 02:37 Plansix wrote:
I want a paid protesting job. Apparently they pay $1500 weekly according to conservatives. I just need to know what the benefits are like.
You get Obamacare, which is not to be confused with the ACA.
|
On March 01 2017 03:40 LegalLord wrote:
I think it's clear that Trump has an alternate reality resilient to being convinced of being wrong.
I think Bannon made certain predictions that ended up making Trump insanely trusting in him. I think he sees Bannon as proven and having a lot more credibility than others.
|
On March 01 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:
He is attempting to make an argument that the way someone wins does not impact their ability to govern. As long as a law was passed, it doesn't matter who voted for it or their reasons for doing so.
Reality has a very different stance on the subject.
My argument is that the popular vote doesn't matter and the only arguments given against it are petty insults and abstract concepts that the media made up to make a story out of nothing.
Gee I feel real defeated on this.
|
On March 01 2017 04:26 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:
He is attempting to make an argument that the way someone wins does not impact their ability to govern. As long as a law was passed, it doesn't matter who voted for it or their reasons for doing so.
Reality has a very different stance on the subject. My argument is that the popular vote doesn't matter and the only arguments given against it are petty insults and abstract concepts that the media made up to make a story out of nothing. Gee I feel real defeated on this.
Democracy is an abstract concept, so let’s not act like they are entirely without merit. Winning is also pretty abstract if you think about it. And the media.
|
On March 01 2017 02:50 farvacola wrote:
That you've retreated to poorly describing India in support of your clumsy depiction of the US political system suggests that you've recognized the infirm ground on which you stand, so kudos for that. However, the point remains that "the popular vote doesn't matter" is outright false.
Your being silly. KwarK misunderstood my post and I corrected what ment. You can't simply state that my discription of India was poor when no one has made any point against what I said nor any argument against what I said.
You and p8 are making unconnected statements that have no context or substance. If your going to insult me at least make an argument about why or create a point why. This isn't suppose to be hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
