|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 06 2020 01:24 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2020 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:
Rounding to the nearest 10% in this case is just a distortion of the stats.
I have never seen a poll or election where it was deemed necessary to round up to the nearest 10%.
The only reason you would want to do that is to delete any small difference in the numbers, and make it look like something happened that didn't happen.
I don't even see the point in having the argument now anyway, but if you're going to, its best to just accept the raw numbers instead of arbitrarily changing them to fit what you wish had happened. I also have zero problems with the statistics behind the claim people make that said 50% of the country was racist, because 46.1% of the voting population picked Trump. It's not a matter of trying to make a claim, it's a matter of talking approximately about a very close election. A 2% of a popular vote margin is a very close margin ... you might say a 50-50 election. I'm thinking people really want me to correct the 3million vote loss to 2.87 million vote loss, because approximations are lies! (Or maybe Jockmcplop yells at Tasteless when he says Stats is up twenty probes, when the actual count is 24 or something)
I'm not against rounding up or down.
I'm against doing it in such an arbitrary way as to misrepresent what happened.
To be clear, there was a sizeable difference in the vote percentages, and to round up to a less accurate figure in order to delete that difference is a misrepresentation of events.
It wasn't a 50/50 election, it was a 50/45 election, if you're going to be rounding for ease of typing.
You can keep inferring that i'm being ridiculous or pedantic, which is fine, i don't mind being called pedantic for pointing out that a rounding 'error' can be misrepresentative.
You aren't going to be able to get me thinking that 2+2=5.
|
On August 06 2020 01:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2020 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:
Rounding to the nearest 10% in this case is just a distortion of the stats.
I have never seen a poll or election where it was deemed necessary to round up to the nearest 10%.
The only reason you would want to do that is to delete any small difference in the numbers, and make it look like something happened that didn't happen.
I don't even see the point in having the argument now anyway, but if you're going to, its best to just accept the raw numbers instead of arbitrarily changing them to fit what you wish had happened. I also have zero problems with the statistics behind the claim people make that said 50% of the country was racist, because 46.1% of the voting population picked Trump. It's not a matter of trying to make a claim, it's a matter of talking approximately about a very close election. A 2% of a popular vote margin is a very close margin ... you might say a 50-50 election. I'm thinking people really want me to correct the 3million vote loss to 2.87 million vote loss, because approximations are lies! (Or maybe Jockmcplop yells at Tasteless when he says Stats is up twenty probes, when the actual count is 24 or something) Show nested quote +On August 06 2020 01:21 brian wrote:
it doesn’t have to be, my point was it’s an asinine thing to say or do in the first place. I posted to say the person correcting the "50% voted for Trump" to 46.1% was an asinine thing to say or do. We don't have to use 46.1% to 48.2% every time someone wants to reference the 2016 vote.
I don’t think there’s a meaningful distinction between the 46 vs 48 as a means of discrediting Trump’s election, agree with you fully there. I had understood the criticism as the usual ‘but electoral college sucks!’ variety, but in either case it only serves to poorly deflect from the crazy amount of people who voted for our boy.
|
On August 06 2020 01:29 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2020 01:07 Danglars wrote:On August 06 2020 00:41 Nevuk wrote:
There were plenty of "Not my president" signs going around. Trump definitely didn't get anything like acceptance from a large portion of voters, and he lost what little he had gained after he governed the same as he campaigned (remember the days when the media kept hyping the "presidential pivot"?).
Now, I don't think they literally meant "I don't believe he's president" for the most part, more that "he doesn't represent me". There's also a lot of outside factors people could blame for his election- Russian interference (ie DNC email dump with Moloch references), Comey's letter which violated all precedent and didn't mention that Trump was also under investigation, Hillary's pneumonia. And they'd all be right. It was a super close election decided by <10k votes in 3 states, so basically any one of those not happening and Trump loses. Trump got quite lucky.
Comey's misdeeds are good to bring up, though they were made in light of sworn testimony regarding Hillary's operation of a private server in a bathroom closet. The point of misdeed was swearing to alert Congress if anything further came up in a closed investigation, and holding a press conference announcing the results (that's the DOJ AG's office to determine). He has since been exposed on numerous instances of FISA abuse in Inspector General reports and general corruption in the Flynn matter, so it appears he was just overall an unethical guy who never should have risen even close to his final rank in the FBI. I think we agree on Comey, though differ on the reasons. I believe the FBI announced their recent audit found only minor issues with the FISA process. Of course, we'll never know for sure, since it's a secret court (which is a terrible idea for US citizens). I'm inclined to believe them at least with regards to Carter Page, because have you seen the guy talk? Any interview he gives seems like it would be grounds to still have one on him. He was definitely a bad executive regardless of the FISA thing. He let his people leak endlessly (to both sides), made weird, half assed statements on the private server (I still can't tell if he actually thought she did something wrong - he tried to have it both ways), and his book was only exceeded by Hillary's in level of avoiding blame for events he was involved in. He could have announced the reopening of the investigation significantly earlier than he did. Seemed delusional to think it wouldn't come out. For all that Mueller didn't look great in front of congress, his team was far better organized and led.
You're referring to the review that came up with 208 FISA errors. From that review, most were minor. I'm talking about the IG review of just the Carter Page wiretap. Those founds 17 significant errors or omissions. So you're right to say the 208 number wasn't as bad as might be assumed, but wrong to say Comey's FBI were just making minor mistakes. And that's just the tip of the Comey iceberg, if you want to delve deeper into the classified leaks and non-routine treatment in his department. Sally Yates is testifying right now to some of them on Capitol Hill.
|
On August 06 2020 01:34 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2020 01:24 Danglars wrote:On August 06 2020 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:
Rounding to the nearest 10% in this case is just a distortion of the stats.
I have never seen a poll or election where it was deemed necessary to round up to the nearest 10%.
The only reason you would want to do that is to delete any small difference in the numbers, and make it look like something happened that didn't happen.
I don't even see the point in having the argument now anyway, but if you're going to, its best to just accept the raw numbers instead of arbitrarily changing them to fit what you wish had happened. I also have zero problems with the statistics behind the claim people make that said 50% of the country was racist, because 46.1% of the voting population picked Trump. It's not a matter of trying to make a claim, it's a matter of talking approximately about a very close election. A 2% of a popular vote margin is a very close margin ... you might say a 50-50 election. I'm thinking people really want me to correct the 3million vote loss to 2.87 million vote loss, because approximations are lies! (Or maybe Jockmcplop yells at Tasteless when he says Stats is up twenty probes, when the actual count is 24 or something) I'm not against rounding up or down. I'm against doing it in such an arbitrary way as to misrepresent what happened. To be clear, there was a sizeable difference in the vote percentages, and to round up to a less accurate figure in order to delete that difference is a misrepresentation of events. It wasn't a 50/50 election, it was a 50/45 election, if you're going to be rounding for ease of typing. You can keep inferring that i'm being ridiculous or pedantic, which is fine, i don't mind being called pedantic for pointing out that a rounding 'error' can be misrepresentative. You aren't going to be able to get me thinking that 2+2=5.
If you want to round that way, you are correct as well. You weren't the one criticizing the "50% voted for Trump," since you didn't pipe up to correct him.
|
On August 06 2020 01:35 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2020 01:26 Danglars wrote:On August 06 2020 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:
Rounding to the nearest 10% in this case is just a distortion of the stats.
I have never seen a poll or election where it was deemed necessary to round up to the nearest 10%.
The only reason you would want to do that is to delete any small difference in the numbers, and make it look like something happened that didn't happen.
I don't even see the point in having the argument now anyway, but if you're going to, its best to just accept the raw numbers instead of arbitrarily changing them to fit what you wish had happened. I also have zero problems with the statistics behind the claim people make that said 50% of the country was racist, because 46.1% of the voting population picked Trump. It's not a matter of trying to make a claim, it's a matter of talking approximately about a very close election. A 2% of a popular vote margin is a very close margin ... you might say a 50-50 election. I'm thinking people really want me to correct the 3million vote loss to 2.87 million vote loss, because approximations are lies! (Or maybe Jockmcplop yells at Tasteless when he says Stats is up twenty probes, when the actual count is 24 or something) On August 06 2020 01:21 brian wrote:
it doesn’t have to be, my point was it’s an asinine thing to say or do in the first place. I posted to say the person correcting the "50% voted for Trump" to 46.1% was an asinine thing to say or do. We don't have to use 46.1% to 48.2% every time someone wants to reference the 2016 vote. I don’t think there’s a meaningful distinction between the 46 vs 48 as a means of discrediting Trump’s election, agree with you fully there. I had understood the criticism as the usual ‘but electoral college sucks!’ variety, but in either case it only serves to poorly deflect from the crazy amount of people who voted for our boy.
I don't have problems with people using 46.1%, 45%, or 50% to point out the "crazy amount of people who voted for our boy." They're all variations of a top down view for how 129 million American citizens voted (or 128.8 million, or 130 million, or 100 milion)
|
Tuesday's primaries great winners have been the progressive democrats and moderate republicans. That's two really good news. I am hopeful that not only the progressive democrat keep winning and dictate more and more of the party's agenda, but that "moderate" republicans slowly start to reclaim their party.
Source
|
On August 06 2020 01:34 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2020 01:24 Danglars wrote:On August 06 2020 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:
Rounding to the nearest 10% in this case is just a distortion of the stats.
I have never seen a poll or election where it was deemed necessary to round up to the nearest 10%.
The only reason you would want to do that is to delete any small difference in the numbers, and make it look like something happened that didn't happen.
I don't even see the point in having the argument now anyway, but if you're going to, its best to just accept the raw numbers instead of arbitrarily changing them to fit what you wish had happened. I also have zero problems with the statistics behind the claim people make that said 50% of the country was racist, because 46.1% of the voting population picked Trump. It's not a matter of trying to make a claim, it's a matter of talking approximately about a very close election. A 2% of a popular vote margin is a very close margin ... you might say a 50-50 election. I'm thinking people really want me to correct the 3million vote loss to 2.87 million vote loss, because approximations are lies! (Or maybe Jockmcplop yells at Tasteless when he says Stats is up twenty probes, when the actual count is 24 or something) I'm not against rounding up or down. I'm against doing it in such an arbitrary way as to misrepresent what happened. To be clear, there was a sizeable difference in the vote percentages, and to round up to a less accurate figure in order to delete that difference is a misrepresentation of events. It wasn't a 50/50 election, it was a 50/45 election, if you're going to be rounding for ease of typing. You can keep inferring that i'm being ridiculous or pedantic, which is fine, i don't mind being called pedantic for pointing out that a rounding 'error' can be misrepresentative. You aren't going to be able to get me thinking that 2+2=5.
Why is rounding to 45% correct? Assuming you are using decimal numerals (and if you aren't you still don't round to 45%, but you could round to 90 in base 5 to mean the same thing). You can round to 5x10^1, which I am okay with you writing 50, even though that is technically wrong (as 50 has 2 significant digits and 5x10^1 only has 1). But 45 has the same number of significant digits as 46, so why the hell are you rounding anything to 45, unless it's money and you don't have pennies?
Either you don't care enough about the significance of the final digit (or think the precision of the polling system is so bad that the margin of error makes that 1s digit insignificant), and you round to 50, in which case it was a 50-50 election, or you do care about that 1s digit and you round to 46-48 (and some other stuff for the greens and libertarians and stuff).
You can argue about rounding to hide the significant details of the election (and imho you are right: we both know this detail with sufficient precision *and* it's an important detail, thus significant), but don't go around making up your own rounding conventions to prove your point.
|
On August 06 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2020 01:01 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 06 2020 00:08 Danglars wrote:On August 05 2020 23:40 brian wrote:
I suppose one could argue that nearly every election in recent history was a clean 50/50 split with the occasional 60/40 but i can’t see how that would possibly help any sort of conversation. Under 5% difference so it rounds it away (aka the election was closer to 60-40 than 50-50 + Show Spoiler +looking at the major party candidates, of course )? Obama (once), Clinton (twice), GHW Bush, Reagan (twice). So 6 times in the last 10 elections? I'd say the science says "nearly every election" is wrong. On August 05 2020 23:58 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 05 2020 23:25 Danglars wrote:On August 05 2020 16:35 KT_Elwood wrote:On August 05 2020 16:20 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 05 2020 15:45 120720 wrote:
People should stop bashing Trump, what about the millions that voted for him, think like him, do worse than him?
Trump did not stole and election and made everyone racist, he stole an election while everyone was racist.
Look at your two candidates right now, 80 years old had a stroke guy or 80 years old representation of half the population guy.
Other guy everyone regrets is 80 years old want to change the whole country against the views of half of them.
Your country can hardly be united since you have such different views...
I don't understand why we can't bash trump. Because 50 percent of the population voted for him? Because the country is racist? Because Biden is equally old? People are criticizing trump for the job he is doing, for his personality and for his policies. None of that can be dismissed because of any of the points you brought up. Actually Clinton got roughly 3 million more votes than Trump in 2016. So he is representing some more dirt in Colorado, but not the 50% of the US-Citizens ........................Trump....................Clinton Popular vote___62,984,828_____65,853,514 Percentage ____46.1% __________48.2% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election Trump got 46% of the vote, and you’re happy that’s not 50%? I’ve got some bad news for you about the tight neighborhood of those percentages. (One might even decide to round to the nearest tens to get a rough approximation of how the country voted) Oh what faith your argument has, it could turn the undead! But seriously, we could also decide to round to the nearest hundred and sit here wondering why we have a president at all when everyone got 0% of the vote. Don't be a dumbass. Don't try to blunder your way through a very close election to announce "50 percent of the (voting) population voted for him" to be wrong. I think it's an easy choice, but some very passionate people on this forum want to play games with a 2% popular vote margin to declare something untrue. And like a bad weed, it keeps coming back. May I quip, maybe it's time to accept the 2016 election results? What do you mean "Blunder your way through a close election" exactly? You know, I voted, but otherwise had little to do with the logistics. Did you mean those passionate people want to "play games with a 2% popular vote margin" like declare that 45 lost the popular vote by 2%? Because that's not "playing games" that's called "describing reality." Here we can "play a game." Every ten seconds, we both put 50 cents into a bowl and then I will take 52 cents out and you take out 48 cents. It's a great game because we both put in 50 cents, and both take out ~50 cents so you won't ever lose money! Are you suggesting we should shut up about how much of an odious heap of skin flaps held together by greed our current president is because many (but not most) of our fellow countrymen voted for him in 2016? If so, then I suggest you stick your suggestion somewhere suggestive. No one is arguing about who won the 2016 election, who got the most electoral votes, who got the most popular votes, etc. It is a FACT that 45 got the most electoral votes and was elected to the office of president based on the current electoral system. It is also a FACT that 45 lost the popular vote. Maybe it's time for you to accept those results. You're getting a little distracted here, so let me recenter. Are you still claiming declaring the election 50% is tantamount to "we could also decide to round to the nearest hundred and sit here wondering why we have a president at all when everyone got 0% of the vote. Don't be a dumbass." I think it's an accurate statement of a very close election result with a margin of 2%. I'm fine with anyone saying Trump lost the election by 3 million votes and 2% of the popular vote. I'm not okay with these handwringers opposed to "50% of the population voted for him" to say (AkTually) "Clinton got roughly 3 million more votes." Yeah, she got 3 million more votes in roughly a 50-50 election. Taking just the votes for the two major party candidates, that's 51% to 49%. If 51% to 49% is a big enough difference to declare "50% voted for Trump" a lie, then perhaps your real gripe is that the other guy said Clinton won by 3 million, when actually it was 2.87 million. Because that's apparently where we're at on approximations, and probably not worth further investment of time unless more than one person and one half-hearted person wants to gripe.
Imean. There are a lot of problems here.
1. If you want to say "The election was approximately 50-50," that's fine, but a misleading statement so people will probably correct you.
2. Saying "Of the people who voted for the two major parties, it was a 51-49 affair" is also fine, but that ratio has little bearing on the total election because of how statistics work. In this case, it's pretty close, but consider -
e.g. If I poll 100 people for favorite SC2 race and get 20 P, 30 T, 48 Z, and then two trolls write "Dog Barf" and "Ur mom, lol," the result of the poll is not a 50-50 tie between "Dog Barf" and "Ur mom, lol," despite that being the ratio of voters who voted for one of those two items.
3. You're upset that people are clarifying that it was 46-48-6 (the 6 in this case being "other") when you make an inflammatory claims about 50% of the population based on your approximation of the election as a 50-50 split affair (which it wasn't)?
Gee. Sorry?
If you generalize half the population as racists based on your estimation, don't be surprised if people provide accurate statistics to disprove your claim?
When you make a statement like "half the country is racist" most people think about half of the people they know/encounter. They think, "hey, this doesn't feel true to my experience, and looking at the statistics, they don't seem to back up your claim." To which you respond "It's close enough." Close enough for what? To label 3 million people based on your extreme value judgement of one act. Clearly voting for 45 was and is voting for racism, but does that act of racism make those people irredeemably racist? Certainly one would hope not. In your scenario, not only would one have to ignore the actual statistics of the election, but also assume that every single one of the inflated 49% you provide penned the bubble next to 45 with the same black ink that constitutes their hearts. No ignorance, influence or misplaced fervor, only malice aforethought.
Beyond that, it IS important to clarify that 45 lost the popular vote because a lot of people believe the Electoral College system to be corrupt/ineffective and it is worth pointing out problems and attempting to solve them, especially since this one seems to have resulted in something so heinous.
|
@Acrofales
Its just about the desired/available precision. In some cases rounding to .5, 5, 50 and so on makes sense. Mind You i am not saying this makes sense in this particular case. Just that this practice exist.
|
On August 06 2020 03:55 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On August 06 2020 01:01 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 06 2020 00:08 Danglars wrote:On August 05 2020 23:40 brian wrote:
I suppose one could argue that nearly every election in recent history was a clean 50/50 split with the occasional 60/40 but i can’t see how that would possibly help any sort of conversation. Under 5% difference so it rounds it away (aka the election was closer to 60-40 than 50-50 + Show Spoiler +looking at the major party candidates, of course )? Obama (once), Clinton (twice), GHW Bush, Reagan (twice). So 6 times in the last 10 elections? I'd say the science says "nearly every election" is wrong. On August 05 2020 23:58 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 05 2020 23:25 Danglars wrote:On August 05 2020 16:35 KT_Elwood wrote:On August 05 2020 16:20 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 05 2020 15:45 120720 wrote:
People should stop bashing Trump, what about the millions that voted for him, think like him, do worse than him?
Trump did not stole and election and made everyone racist, he stole an election while everyone was racist.
Look at your two candidates right now, 80 years old had a stroke guy or 80 years old representation of half the population guy.
Other guy everyone regrets is 80 years old want to change the whole country against the views of half of them.
Your country can hardly be united since you have such different views...
I don't understand why we can't bash trump. Because 50 percent of the population voted for him? Because the country is racist? Because Biden is equally old? People are criticizing trump for the job he is doing, for his personality and for his policies. None of that can be dismissed because of any of the points you brought up. Actually Clinton got roughly 3 million more votes than Trump in 2016. So he is representing some more dirt in Colorado, but not the 50% of the US-Citizens ........................Trump....................Clinton Popular vote___62,984,828_____65,853,514 Percentage ____46.1% __________48.2% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election Trump got 46% of the vote, and you’re happy that’s not 50%? I’ve got some bad news for you about the tight neighborhood of those percentages. (One might even decide to round to the nearest tens to get a rough approximation of how the country voted) Oh what faith your argument has, it could turn the undead! But seriously, we could also decide to round to the nearest hundred and sit here wondering why we have a president at all when everyone got 0% of the vote. Don't be a dumbass. Don't try to blunder your way through a very close election to announce "50 percent of the (voting) population voted for him" to be wrong. I think it's an easy choice, but some very passionate people on this forum want to play games with a 2% popular vote margin to declare something untrue. And like a bad weed, it keeps coming back. May I quip, maybe it's time to accept the 2016 election results? What do you mean "Blunder your way through a close election" exactly? You know, I voted, but otherwise had little to do with the logistics. Did you mean those passionate people want to "play games with a 2% popular vote margin" like declare that 45 lost the popular vote by 2%? Because that's not "playing games" that's called "describing reality." Here we can "play a game." Every ten seconds, we both put 50 cents into a bowl and then I will take 52 cents out and you take out 48 cents. It's a great game because we both put in 50 cents, and both take out ~50 cents so you won't ever lose money! Are you suggesting we should shut up about how much of an odious heap of skin flaps held together by greed our current president is because many (but not most) of our fellow countrymen voted for him in 2016? If so, then I suggest you stick your suggestion somewhere suggestive. No one is arguing about who won the 2016 election, who got the most electoral votes, who got the most popular votes, etc. It is a FACT that 45 got the most electoral votes and was elected to the office of president based on the current electoral system. It is also a FACT that 45 lost the popular vote. Maybe it's time for you to accept those results. You're getting a little distracted here, so let me recenter. Are you still claiming declaring the election 50% is tantamount to "we could also decide to round to the nearest hundred and sit here wondering why we have a president at all when everyone got 0% of the vote. Don't be a dumbass." I think it's an accurate statement of a very close election result with a margin of 2%. I'm fine with anyone saying Trump lost the election by 3 million votes and 2% of the popular vote. I'm not okay with these handwringers opposed to "50% of the population voted for him" to say (AkTually) "Clinton got roughly 3 million more votes." Yeah, she got 3 million more votes in roughly a 50-50 election. Taking just the votes for the two major party candidates, that's 51% to 49%. If 51% to 49% is a big enough difference to declare "50% voted for Trump" a lie, then perhaps your real gripe is that the other guy said Clinton won by 3 million, when actually it was 2.87 million. Because that's apparently where we're at on approximations, and probably not worth further investment of time unless more than one person and one half-hearted person wants to gripe. Imean. There are a lot of problems here. 1. If you want to say "The election was approximately 50-50," that's fine, but a misleading statement so people will probably correct you.
It’s a true statement, just like Hillary got approximately 3 million more votes, and her margin of popular vote victory was approximately 2%.
I’m not really in the business of hammering the “true but misleading” part among people that never claimed Trump won the popular vote. I look at the quote in context, and he was talking about the size of Trumps support as it relates to bashing Trump or bashing his voters. It’s clear he was talking in rough measures and not intending to mislead, which made the “correction” an utterly foolish thing to do.
The rest of what you posted about were examples of mine to get you to your #1 statement (“That’s fine”) and away from talking about zombie points in a close election. I have no interest in discussing the racism allegations, or who we should bash or shouldn’t bash, with you. If you want to know if he was conflating the voting public with the actual public, go ask him.
To label 3 million people based on your extreme value judgement of one act
I really have no idea what you mean, because I didn’t see anybody trying to label the margin of victory. It raises questions on which 3 million you’re talking about, because they represent no distinct population of people.
|
On August 06 2020 04:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2020 03:55 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 06 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On August 06 2020 01:01 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 06 2020 00:08 Danglars wrote:On August 05 2020 23:40 brian wrote:
I suppose one could argue that nearly every election in recent history was a clean 50/50 split with the occasional 60/40 but i can’t see how that would possibly help any sort of conversation. Under 5% difference so it rounds it away (aka the election was closer to 60-40 than 50-50 + Show Spoiler +looking at the major party candidates, of course )? Obama (once), Clinton (twice), GHW Bush, Reagan (twice). So 6 times in the last 10 elections? I'd say the science says "nearly every election" is wrong. On August 05 2020 23:58 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 05 2020 23:25 Danglars wrote:On August 05 2020 16:35 KT_Elwood wrote:On August 05 2020 16:20 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 05 2020 15:45 120720 wrote:
People should stop bashing Trump, what about the millions that voted for him, think like him, do worse than him?
Trump did not stole and election and made everyone racist, he stole an election while everyone was racist.
Look at your two candidates right now, 80 years old had a stroke guy or 80 years old representation of half the population guy.
Other guy everyone regrets is 80 years old want to change the whole country against the views of half of them.
Your country can hardly be united since you have such different views...
I don't understand why we can't bash trump. Because 50 percent of the population voted for him? Because the country is racist? Because Biden is equally old? People are criticizing trump for the job he is doing, for his personality and for his policies. None of that can be dismissed because of any of the points you brought up. Actually Clinton got roughly 3 million more votes than Trump in 2016. So he is representing some more dirt in Colorado, but not the 50% of the US-Citizens ........................Trump....................Clinton Popular vote___62,984,828_____65,853,514 Percentage ____46.1% __________48.2% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election Trump got 46% of the vote, and you’re happy that’s not 50%? I’ve got some bad news for you about the tight neighborhood of those percentages. (One might even decide to round to the nearest tens to get a rough approximation of how the country voted) Oh what faith your argument has, it could turn the undead! But seriously, we could also decide to round to the nearest hundred and sit here wondering why we have a president at all when everyone got 0% of the vote. Don't be a dumbass. Don't try to blunder your way through a very close election to announce "50 percent of the (voting) population voted for him" to be wrong. I think it's an easy choice, but some very passionate people on this forum want to play games with a 2% popular vote margin to declare something untrue. And like a bad weed, it keeps coming back. May I quip, maybe it's time to accept the 2016 election results? What do you mean "Blunder your way through a close election" exactly? You know, I voted, but otherwise had little to do with the logistics. Did you mean those passionate people want to "play games with a 2% popular vote margin" like declare that 45 lost the popular vote by 2%? Because that's not "playing games" that's called "describing reality." Here we can "play a game." Every ten seconds, we both put 50 cents into a bowl and then I will take 52 cents out and you take out 48 cents. It's a great game because we both put in 50 cents, and both take out ~50 cents so you won't ever lose money! Are you suggesting we should shut up about how much of an odious heap of skin flaps held together by greed our current president is because many (but not most) of our fellow countrymen voted for him in 2016? If so, then I suggest you stick your suggestion somewhere suggestive. No one is arguing about who won the 2016 election, who got the most electoral votes, who got the most popular votes, etc. It is a FACT that 45 got the most electoral votes and was elected to the office of president based on the current electoral system. It is also a FACT that 45 lost the popular vote. Maybe it's time for you to accept those results. You're getting a little distracted here, so let me recenter. Are you still claiming declaring the election 50% is tantamount to "we could also decide to round to the nearest hundred and sit here wondering why we have a president at all when everyone got 0% of the vote. Don't be a dumbass." I think it's an accurate statement of a very close election result with a margin of 2%. I'm fine with anyone saying Trump lost the election by 3 million votes and 2% of the popular vote. I'm not okay with these handwringers opposed to "50% of the population voted for him" to say (AkTually) "Clinton got roughly 3 million more votes." Yeah, she got 3 million more votes in roughly a 50-50 election. Taking just the votes for the two major party candidates, that's 51% to 49%. If 51% to 49% is a big enough difference to declare "50% voted for Trump" a lie, then perhaps your real gripe is that the other guy said Clinton won by 3 million, when actually it was 2.87 million. Because that's apparently where we're at on approximations, and probably not worth further investment of time unless more than one person and one half-hearted person wants to gripe. Imean. There are a lot of problems here. 1. If you want to say "The election was approximately 50-50," that's fine, but a misleading statement so people will probably correct you. It’s a true statement, just like Hillary got approximately 3 million more votes, and her margin of popular vote victory was approximately 2%. I’m not really in the business of hammering the “true but misleading” part among people that never claimed Trump won the popular vote. I look at the quote in context, and he was talking about the size of Trumps support as it relates to bashing Trump or bashing his voters. It’s clear he was talking in rough measures and not intending to mislead, which made the “correction” an utterly foolish thing to do. The rest of what you posted about were examples of mine to get you to your #1 statement (“That’s fine”) and away from talking about zombie points in a close election. I have no interest in discussing the racism allegations, or who we should bash or shouldn’t bash, with you. If you want to know if he was conflating the voting public with the actual public, go ask him. I really have no idea what you mean, because I didn’t see anybody trying to label the margin of victory. It raises questions on which 3 million you’re talking about, because they represent no distinct population of people.
It's a true but misleading statement. To become upset when people clarify indicates a lack of awareness.
"An eye for an eye..." - Mahatma Ghandi
The above is an accurate quotation, but you should not be surprised if someone were to clarify the full context.
The 3 million is in reference to the 3 million more popular votes received by Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. By reducing the ratio to 50/50 you are basically discounting those people or counting 3 million more for 45. In order to make the ratio of D/R 1:1 you can follow the following formulae;
For 1:1 ratio R = D
How much more is D than R? The answer is actually in the formula below expressed as a difference.
D-R = 3 million
You can express the same quantity in an addition formula if you add "R" to both sides.
D = R+3 million
Whether these 3 million people exist outside of the current US voter base or are drawn from within it is unknown in this hypothetical scenario. Since you arbitrarily declare a ratio and make a value statement based on that ratio, an arbitrary number of peoples' opinions are misrepresented by your statement.
A different solution would be to say that you mislabel 1.5 mil as racist by moving them from Hillary's vote count to 45's but I assumed you were drawing the needed population from third party voters since you seem to discount their opinions anyways.
Of course, if you want to avoid the embarrassment of having to explain which peoples' opinions you were misrepresenting, you could always make a more accurate statement to begin with.
|
On August 06 2020 05:44 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2020 04:23 Danglars wrote:On August 06 2020 03:55 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 06 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On August 06 2020 01:01 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 06 2020 00:08 Danglars wrote:On August 05 2020 23:40 brian wrote:
I suppose one could argue that nearly every election in recent history was a clean 50/50 split with the occasional 60/40 but i can’t see how that would possibly help any sort of conversation. Under 5% difference so it rounds it away (aka the election was closer to 60-40 than 50-50 + Show Spoiler +looking at the major party candidates, of course )? Obama (once), Clinton (twice), GHW Bush, Reagan (twice). So 6 times in the last 10 elections? I'd say the science says "nearly every election" is wrong. On August 05 2020 23:58 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 05 2020 23:25 Danglars wrote:On August 05 2020 16:35 KT_Elwood wrote:On August 05 2020 16:20 Broetchenholer wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why we can't bash trump. Because 50 percent of the population voted for him? Because the country is racist? Because Biden is equally old? People are criticizing trump for the job he is doing, for his personality and for his policies. None of that can be dismissed because of any of the points you brought up. Actually Clinton got roughly 3 million more votes than Trump in 2016. So he is representing some more dirt in Colorado, but not the 50% of the US-Citizens ........................Trump....................Clinton Popular vote___62,984,828_____65,853,514 Percentage ____46.1% __________48.2% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election Trump got 46% of the vote, and you’re happy that’s not 50%? I’ve got some bad news for you about the tight neighborhood of those percentages. (One might even decide to round to the nearest tens to get a rough approximation of how the country voted) Oh what faith your argument has, it could turn the undead! But seriously, we could also decide to round to the nearest hundred and sit here wondering why we have a president at all when everyone got 0% of the vote. Don't be a dumbass. Don't try to blunder your way through a very close election to announce "50 percent of the (voting) population voted for him" to be wrong. I think it's an easy choice, but some very passionate people on this forum want to play games with a 2% popular vote margin to declare something untrue. And like a bad weed, it keeps coming back. May I quip, maybe it's time to accept the 2016 election results? What do you mean "Blunder your way through a close election" exactly? You know, I voted, but otherwise had little to do with the logistics. Did you mean those passionate people want to "play games with a 2% popular vote margin" like declare that 45 lost the popular vote by 2%? Because that's not "playing games" that's called "describing reality." Here we can "play a game." Every ten seconds, we both put 50 cents into a bowl and then I will take 52 cents out and you take out 48 cents. It's a great game because we both put in 50 cents, and both take out ~50 cents so you won't ever lose money! Are you suggesting we should shut up about how much of an odious heap of skin flaps held together by greed our current president is because many (but not most) of our fellow countrymen voted for him in 2016? If so, then I suggest you stick your suggestion somewhere suggestive. No one is arguing about who won the 2016 election, who got the most electoral votes, who got the most popular votes, etc. It is a FACT that 45 got the most electoral votes and was elected to the office of president based on the current electoral system. It is also a FACT that 45 lost the popular vote. Maybe it's time for you to accept those results. You're getting a little distracted here, so let me recenter. Are you still claiming declaring the election 50% is tantamount to "we could also decide to round to the nearest hundred and sit here wondering why we have a president at all when everyone got 0% of the vote. Don't be a dumbass." I think it's an accurate statement of a very close election result with a margin of 2%. I'm fine with anyone saying Trump lost the election by 3 million votes and 2% of the popular vote. I'm not okay with these handwringers opposed to "50% of the population voted for him" to say (AkTually) "Clinton got roughly 3 million more votes." Yeah, she got 3 million more votes in roughly a 50-50 election. Taking just the votes for the two major party candidates, that's 51% to 49%. If 51% to 49% is a big enough difference to declare "50% voted for Trump" a lie, then perhaps your real gripe is that the other guy said Clinton won by 3 million, when actually it was 2.87 million. Because that's apparently where we're at on approximations, and probably not worth further investment of time unless more than one person and one half-hearted person wants to gripe. Imean. There are a lot of problems here. 1. If you want to say "The election was approximately 50-50," that's fine, but a misleading statement so people will probably correct you. It’s a true statement, just like Hillary got approximately 3 million more votes, and her margin of popular vote victory was approximately 2%. I’m not really in the business of hammering the “true but misleading” part among people that never claimed Trump won the popular vote. I look at the quote in context, and he was talking about the size of Trumps support as it relates to bashing Trump or bashing his voters. It’s clear he was talking in rough measures and not intending to mislead, which made the “correction” an utterly foolish thing to do. The rest of what you posted about were examples of mine to get you to your #1 statement (“That’s fine”) and away from talking about zombie points in a close election. I have no interest in discussing the racism allegations, or who we should bash or shouldn’t bash, with you. If you want to know if he was conflating the voting public with the actual public, go ask him. To label 3 million people based on your extreme value judgement of one act I really have no idea what you mean, because I didn’t see anybody trying to label the margin of victory. It raises questions on which 3 million you’re talking about, because they represent no distinct population of people. It's a true but misleading statement. To become upset when people clarify indicates a lack of awareness. "An eye for an eye..." - Mahatma Ghandi The above is an accurate quotation, but you should not be surprised if someone were to clarify the full context. The 3 million is in reference to the 3 million more popular votes received by Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. By reducing the ratio to 50/50 you are basically discounting those people or counting 3 million more for 45. In order to make the ratio of D/R 1:1 you can follow the following formulae; For 1:1 ratio R = D How much more is D than R? The answer is actually in the formula below expressed as a difference. D-R = 3 million You can express the same quantity in an addition formula if you add "R" to both sides. D = R+3 million Whether these 3 million people exist outside of the current US voter base or are drawn from within it is unknown in this hypothetical scenario. Since you arbitrarily declare a ratio and make a value statement based on that ratio, an arbitrary number of peoples' opinions are misrepresented by your statement. A different solution would be to say that you mislabel 1.5 mil as racist by moving them from Hillary's vote count to 45's but I assumed you were drawing the needed population from third party voters since you seem to discount their opinions anyways. Of course, if you want to avoid the embarrassment of having to explain which peoples' opinions you were misrepresenting, you could always make a more accurate statement to begin with.
My objections to these basically constitute points I've already raised, so I think we're done here. If I were more like you in alleging attempts to mislead with true facts, I'd say you were rounding Hillary's count higher for malign motives. And repeat twice over that she didn't get 3 million more votes. But I'm only teasing on a subject that's definitely run its course.
|
On August 06 2020 02:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:Tuesday's primaries great winners have been the progressive democrats and moderate republicans. That's two really good news. I am hopeful that not only the progressive democrat keep winning and dictate more and more of the party's agenda, but that "moderate" republicans slowly start to reclaim their party. Source
It's unfortunate the Democrats fight progressive policy so fiercely, but good they lost in MO-1 for sure. Rashida Tlaib booing Hillary and keeping her seat is a positive sign as well. Not a good sign the best improvements to the party have come despite their robust opposition to them though.
|
|
|
On August 06 2020 08:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2020 07:43 Danglars wrote:On August 06 2020 05:44 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 06 2020 04:23 Danglars wrote:On August 06 2020 03:55 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 06 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On August 06 2020 01:01 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 06 2020 00:08 Danglars wrote:On August 05 2020 23:40 brian wrote:
I suppose one could argue that nearly every election in recent history was a clean 50/50 split with the occasional 60/40 but i can’t see how that would possibly help any sort of conversation. Under 5% difference so it rounds it away (aka the election was closer to 60-40 than 50-50 + Show Spoiler +looking at the major party candidates, of course )? Obama (once), Clinton (twice), GHW Bush, Reagan (twice). So 6 times in the last 10 elections? I'd say the science says "nearly every election" is wrong. On August 05 2020 23:58 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 05 2020 23:25 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Trump got 46% of the vote, and you’re happy that’s not 50%? I’ve got some bad news for you about the tight neighborhood of those percentages. (One might even decide to round to the nearest tens to get a rough approximation of how the country voted) Oh what faith your argument has, it could turn the undead! But seriously, we could also decide to round to the nearest hundred and sit here wondering why we have a president at all when everyone got 0% of the vote. Don't be a dumbass. Don't try to blunder your way through a very close election to announce "50 percent of the (voting) population voted for him" to be wrong. I think it's an easy choice, but some very passionate people on this forum want to play games with a 2% popular vote margin to declare something untrue. And like a bad weed, it keeps coming back. May I quip, maybe it's time to accept the 2016 election results? What do you mean "Blunder your way through a close election" exactly? You know, I voted, but otherwise had little to do with the logistics. Did you mean those passionate people want to "play games with a 2% popular vote margin" like declare that 45 lost the popular vote by 2%? Because that's not "playing games" that's called "describing reality." Here we can "play a game." Every ten seconds, we both put 50 cents into a bowl and then I will take 52 cents out and you take out 48 cents. It's a great game because we both put in 50 cents, and both take out ~50 cents so you won't ever lose money! Are you suggesting we should shut up about how much of an odious heap of skin flaps held together by greed our current president is because many (but not most) of our fellow countrymen voted for him in 2016? If so, then I suggest you stick your suggestion somewhere suggestive. No one is arguing about who won the 2016 election, who got the most electoral votes, who got the most popular votes, etc. It is a FACT that 45 got the most electoral votes and was elected to the office of president based on the current electoral system. It is also a FACT that 45 lost the popular vote. Maybe it's time for you to accept those results. You're getting a little distracted here, so let me recenter. Are you still claiming declaring the election 50% is tantamount to "we could also decide to round to the nearest hundred and sit here wondering why we have a president at all when everyone got 0% of the vote. Don't be a dumbass." I think it's an accurate statement of a very close election result with a margin of 2%. I'm fine with anyone saying Trump lost the election by 3 million votes and 2% of the popular vote. I'm not okay with these handwringers opposed to "50% of the population voted for him" to say (AkTually) "Clinton got roughly 3 million more votes." Yeah, she got 3 million more votes in roughly a 50-50 election. Taking just the votes for the two major party candidates, that's 51% to 49%. If 51% to 49% is a big enough difference to declare "50% voted for Trump" a lie, then perhaps your real gripe is that the other guy said Clinton won by 3 million, when actually it was 2.87 million. Because that's apparently where we're at on approximations, and probably not worth further investment of time unless more than one person and one half-hearted person wants to gripe. Imean. There are a lot of problems here. 1. If you want to say "The election was approximately 50-50," that's fine, but a misleading statement so people will probably correct you. It’s a true statement, just like Hillary got approximately 3 million more votes, and her margin of popular vote victory was approximately 2%. I’m not really in the business of hammering the “true but misleading” part among people that never claimed Trump won the popular vote. I look at the quote in context, and he was talking about the size of Trumps support as it relates to bashing Trump or bashing his voters. It’s clear he was talking in rough measures and not intending to mislead, which made the “correction” an utterly foolish thing to do. The rest of what you posted about were examples of mine to get you to your #1 statement (“That’s fine”) and away from talking about zombie points in a close election. I have no interest in discussing the racism allegations, or who we should bash or shouldn’t bash, with you. If you want to know if he was conflating the voting public with the actual public, go ask him. To label 3 million people based on your extreme value judgement of one act I really have no idea what you mean, because I didn’t see anybody trying to label the margin of victory. It raises questions on which 3 million you’re talking about, because they represent no distinct population of people. It's a true but misleading statement. To become upset when people clarify indicates a lack of awareness. "An eye for an eye..." - Mahatma Ghandi The above is an accurate quotation, but you should not be surprised if someone were to clarify the full context. The 3 million is in reference to the 3 million more popular votes received by Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. By reducing the ratio to 50/50 you are basically discounting those people or counting 3 million more for 45. In order to make the ratio of D/R 1:1 you can follow the following formulae; For 1:1 ratio R = D How much more is D than R? The answer is actually in the formula below expressed as a difference. D-R = 3 million You can express the same quantity in an addition formula if you add "R" to both sides. D = R+3 million Whether these 3 million people exist outside of the current US voter base or are drawn from within it is unknown in this hypothetical scenario. Since you arbitrarily declare a ratio and make a value statement based on that ratio, an arbitrary number of peoples' opinions are misrepresented by your statement. A different solution would be to say that you mislabel 1.5 mil as racist by moving them from Hillary's vote count to 45's but I assumed you were drawing the needed population from third party voters since you seem to discount their opinions anyways. Of course, if you want to avoid the embarrassment of having to explain which peoples' opinions you were misrepresenting, you could always make a more accurate statement to begin with. My objections to these basically constitute points I've already raised, so I think we're done here. If I were more like you in alleging attempts to mislead with true facts, I'd say you were rounding Hillary's count higher for malign motives. And repeat twice over that she didn't get 3 million more votes. But I'm only teasing on a subject that's definitely run its course. You just did what you said you were not going to do in the post you said you were not going to do it. If I were more like him, I would make those points. Tough crowd.
|
On August 06 2020 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2020 02:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:Tuesday's primaries great winners have been the progressive democrats and moderate republicans. That's two really good news. I am hopeful that not only the progressive democrat keep winning and dictate more and more of the party's agenda, but that "moderate" republicans slowly start to reclaim their party. Source It's unfortunate the Democrats fight progressive policy so fiercely, but good they lost in MO-1 for sure. Rashida Tlaib booing Hillary and keeping her seat is a positive sign as well. Not a good sign the best improvements to the party have come despite their robust opposition to them though.
Trump has unintentionally given the Democrats free reign to be as conservative as possible. "But what about the other guy in office??!!? No matter what we have to get them out" is going to be the norm going forward IMO.
|
On August 06 2020 08:20 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2020 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 06 2020 02:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:Tuesday's primaries great winners have been the progressive democrats and moderate republicans. That's two really good news. I am hopeful that not only the progressive democrat keep winning and dictate more and more of the party's agenda, but that "moderate" republicans slowly start to reclaim their party. Source It's unfortunate the Democrats fight progressive policy so fiercely, but good they lost in MO-1 for sure. Rashida Tlaib booing Hillary and keeping her seat is a positive sign as well. Not a good sign the best improvements to the party have come despite their robust opposition to them though. Trump has unintentionally given the Democrats free reign to be as conservative as possible. "But what about the other guy in office??!!? No matter what we have to get them out" is going to be the norm going forward IMO.
I just wish Biden would pick Kasich as VP so Democrat voters could really grapple with how vacuous their position is. They could get the cop VP and still not do it I 'd bet.
|
|
|
On August 06 2020 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2020 08:20 mierin wrote:On August 06 2020 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 06 2020 02:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:Tuesday's primaries great winners have been the progressive democrats and moderate republicans. That's two really good news. I am hopeful that not only the progressive democrat keep winning and dictate more and more of the party's agenda, but that "moderate" republicans slowly start to reclaim their party. Source It's unfortunate the Democrats fight progressive policy so fiercely, but good they lost in MO-1 for sure. Rashida Tlaib booing Hillary and keeping her seat is a positive sign as well. Not a good sign the best improvements to the party have come despite their robust opposition to them though. Trump has unintentionally given the Democrats free reign to be as conservative as possible. "But what about the other guy in office??!!? No matter what we have to get them out" is going to be the norm going forward IMO. I just wish Biden would pick Kasich as VP so Democrat voters could really grapple with how vacuous their position is. They could get the cop VP and still not do it I 'd bet.
Biden will pick Harris and it'll be a patting on the back masturbatory extravaganza.
|
On August 06 2020 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2020 02:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:Tuesday's primaries great winners have been the progressive democrats and moderate republicans. That's two really good news. I am hopeful that not only the progressive democrat keep winning and dictate more and more of the party's agenda, but that "moderate" republicans slowly start to reclaim their party. Source It's unfortunate the Democrats fight progressive policy so fiercely, but good they lost in MO-1 for sure. Rashida Tlaib booing Hillary and keeping her seat is a positive sign as well. Not a good sign the best improvements to the party have come despite their robust opposition to them though.
Well that's how parties change 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
