General US Politics

[Lushen]

2 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Your claim was "Republicans don't answer the phone as much."

Your source should be a study that proves that. You did not post a source, you just said "Clinton lost, lol!" Otherwise, you're making shit up.

Also Trump did not blow Clinton out of the water in swing states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Results_by_state

Again, they were within the error published by 538. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were not considered swing states either, so Trump overperformed (but within error except I believe in Michigan). Arizona was nearly won by Clinton.

Um no.  No it wasn't.  My claim was they didn't answer survey calls, not phone calls in general....

People make up sources before they back them up 100% of the time.  That's how it works.  And I believe I backed up my claim.  Am I not allowed to make claims because I don't have a PHD? 

Blowing out of the water in reference to a campaign does not mean he won a state by over 10%, or he's the next Reagan.  It means he won almost all swing states, and plenty of states that haven't voted republican in a long time.  Within error is still pretty dramatic when you think how they're not even considered swing states. 

[Lord Raven]

 

6 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Um no.  No it wasn't.  My claim was they didn't answer survey calls, not phone calls in general....

Okay, so where's your source on this?

Quote

People make up sources before they back them up 100% of the time.  That's how it works.  And I believe I backed up my claim.  Am I not allowed to make claims because I don't have a PHD?

I don't have a PhD so I don't know where you're getting this shit from. Having that said, what the fuck are you talking about? You didn't back up your claims with any sources, you have only linked 3 links in a completely unrelated conversation. These are not facts you're posting; you're literally talking out of your ass, and you're not providing any sources for your claims. They are not rooted in fact. I'm reporting you for, more or less, not providing sources upon request.

Quote

Blowing out of the water in reference to a campaign does not mean he won a state by over 10%, or he's the next Reagan.  It means he won almost all swing states, and plenty of states that haven't voted republican in a long time.  Within error is still pretty dramatic when you think how they're not even considered swing states.

No, that's not blowing out of the water. Or maybe it is - you should be fucking specific when you say really broad things like that.

I was going to post this on an individual post but:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_clinton-5533.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_clinton-5659.html

Trump highly overperformed in these states; Clinton's vote percentages were well within error. This does not lend credence to your claims of oversampling democrats in any way, shape, or form, and either shows high voter turnout for Trump or low voter turnout for Clinton and third parties.

Also, here's Florida: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html

Both slightly overperformed but within percent error (4%).

Anyway, stop cherry picking, are you listening to any posts or are you just saying that everything's so simple? For someone preaching about how things are never black and white a page or two back, you're sure making everything pretty fucking black and white.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Lushen]

12 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Okay, so where's your source on this?

I don't have a PhD so I don't know where you're getting this shit from. Having that said, what the fuck are you talking about? You didn't back up your claims with any sources, you have only linked 3 links in a completely unrelated conversation. These are not facts you're posting; you're literally talking out of your ass, and you're not providing any sources for your claims. They are not rooted in fact. I'm reporting you for, more or less, not providing sources upon request because this has always been an issue.

I feel like responding to this could be considered spam, since I literally just mentioned it.  It seems like you think if I don't include a URL in my post, I'm not allowed to talk about something.  Do you understand what logical derivations are?  There's no URLs involved because that's not the only way to back up a claim.  If it were, we'd have articles pointing to articles pointing to articles and so on.  Sometimes you hypothesize and back up your hypothesis with LOGIC, not URLs.  My PhD sentence wasn't talking about you, but it was talking about how you seem to think only people publishing articles can figure things out and everyone else is an idiot.

You expect me to back up my opinion that sources lack credibility with sources?  Do you not see the logical wall you're asking me to stumble over?  Those three links I DID post were actually posted as irony to show how illogical this process is.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

Just now, Lushen said:

I feel like responding to this could be considered spam, since I literally just mentioned it.  It seems like you think if I don't include a URL in my post, I'm not allowed to talk about something.  Do you understand what logical derivations are? There's no URLs involved because that's not the only way to back up a claim.  If it were, we'd have articles pointing to articles pointing to articles and so on.  Sometimes you hypothesize and back up your hypothesis with LOGIC, not URLs.

That's not what a source is. You did not logically derive why Republicans answer survey calls less than Democrats. You just stated it, and that flimsy fact (a non-fact, by the way) is not a good basis for an argument nor is it probably even true.

My PhD wasn't talking about you, but it was talking about how you seem to think only people publishing articles can figure things out and everyone else is an idiot.

Not at all what I said. Journalism is a source. If it were a fact, then you'd have multiple sources able to corroborate it, and the logic doesn't match up. I can easily say that Democrats are poorer and don't have phones and therefore they're completely undersampled on every poll -- but without any sort of hard facts to back this up, it's meaningless.

Fuck, I could say every single democrat I know doesn't answer phone surveys but every Republican I know does. And that contradicts your point!

You expect me to back up my opinion that sources lack credibility with sources?  Do you not see the logical wall you're asking me to stumble over?

Your opinion that sources lack credibility is found on faulty logic that you have yet to contradict. I have posted lots and lots of shit about the latter stages of the scientific method and about methodology of polls that you have not seemed to acknowledge or contradict. Anecdotes aren't logic at all, because we all have different anecdotes.

[Lushen]

9 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Fuck, I could say every single democrat I know doesn't answer phone surveys but every Republican I know does. And that contradicts your point!

Sounds like you're saying "I could lie".  Seems like you would have worded it differently if this was actually the case.

I'm going to get carpal tunnel if I talk about how I'm backing up my claim a third time.  I don't know if you just don't consider my reference to be logical, which is fine, or if you just haven't read my post clearly enough.  The 'backing up' was my spiel about how Clinton lost the election, despite phone surveys consistently saying otherwise in all the swing states and some of the ones he turned.  If you have another theory on how these surveys were wrong, I'd love to hear it but you can't just say "sometimes they're wrong" because that doesn't mean there isn't a reason they're wrong.

And please don't blame it on the rain like Georgia.

edit:  Speaking of Georgia, if people are so fed up with the Republican party like all these surveys are saying, how did Georgia Republicans win the special election?

Edited June 28, 2017 by Lushen
I said Ohio...lol

[Tryhard]

1 hour ago, Rezzy said:

It's the devil you know vs the devil you don't.  Many people on it are glad they have at least something, but generally get lower access to care than pretty much anything else.  The work that would go into overhauling the system would put people's care at risk, which many aren't willing to consider.

There were similar studies a decade ago, where a vast majority of people were satisfied with their current healthcare, but it got overhauled regardless. 2010 Health Insurance Satisfaction Numbers

What I say is as an insider with experience treating Medicaid patients, who often express quite a bit of gratitude that I'm able to see them so quickly and express frustration in getting in to see a doctor in a timely manner.

While that may be true, it's become evident that people do not want to regress to what they had previously.

I would say that it's "popular" with people who don't have anything better, and that's the purpose of it, like you said. It's still popular to keep.

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

If you truly think Trump's approval rating is below 40%...you're just silly.  There's no way someone who won the election with a SLIGHTLY lower pop vote percentage somehow lost 10-15% in his first few days of office.  Thing is, trump supporters are giving the big "F U" to telephone surveys. 

I - uh - what? There's plenty of reason for Trump to lose 10-15% in this period. He's attacked Syria, which many of his supporters DID NOT want him to do, he has outright stated that he has revealed classified information that may have put an Israeli source at risk, he outright stated he fired a FBI director because he was investigating any possible ties he has to Russia, he's leading the charge on this objectively bad health care bill that barely anyone outside of Republican politicians support, he's made more than enough buffoonish moves in his short time as president, take your pick. I'm just waiting for it to get as bad as it did under Bush.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lord Raven]

8 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Sounds like you're saying "I could lie".  Seems like you would have worded it differently if this was actually the case.

Yes, this is what I'm saying. I'm just making it sound more and more inane to you, because that's exactly how inane your arguments are.

Quote

I'm going to get carpal tunnel if I talk about how I'm backing up my claim a third time.  I don't know if you just don't consider my reference to be logical, which is fine, or if you just haven't read my post clearly enough.  The 'backing up' was my spiel about how Clinton lost the election, despite phone surveys consistently saying otherwise in all the swing states and some of the ones he turned.  If you have another theory on how these surveys were wrong, I'd love to hear it but you can't just say "sometimes they're wrong" because that doesn't mean there isn't a reason they're wrong.

That's not backing up a claim. That's a tangent that's unrelated to how Republicans are undersampled. Regardless, I showed you the poll numbers; Michigan and Wisconsin (now that I'm recalling right) are a mystery that is related to poor voter turnout. There are counties that Romney lost which Trump won with less votes, even though he received more support from more red counties in Michigan. The same applies to Wisconsin.

However, the numbers do not support oversampling of Democrats. The numbers appear to support overperformance by Trump. Many polls were also taken before Comey's announcement of the extra investigation into the campaign emails, whereas 538 had some extra data taken after the polls which seemed to support the idea of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania flipping this election. He flat out overperformed in those three states, whereas Clinton was very accurately predicted (with Michigan being extremely accurate to Clinton - polls and the final vote count were 47%, and the rest were within standard error).

Pennsylvania polling was also within standard error for both sides - https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html

Now, "standard error" is not "polls can be wrong sometimes." How the fuck did you study engineering without knowing how standard error works? In any statistical analysis there is standard error, which polling has determined to be within polling accuracy. This isn't "polling is wrong sometimes," this is "people need to fucking vote, because the polls assume everyone will and not everyone did for various reasons." This is also logically consistent with his shitty approval ratings.

8 minutes ago, Lushen said:

edit:  Speaking of Georgia, if people are so fed up with the Republican party like all these surveys are saying, how did Georgia Republicans win the special election?

Do you actually know anything about that special election? That district has consistently gone Republican since the 70s, with some running unopposed. To put things into perspective, many times the Republicans won by significant margins over the Democrats, and Osoff was actually very close to winning it. In fact, he was very close to getting the over 50% needed for the runoffs. That, if nothing else, is a sign that people are sick of the Republican party and their shit. Their new healthcare bill is widely unpopular, Fox News ratings are down heavily, and Trump's approval ratings continue to drop.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Lord Raven

[euklyd]

6 minutes ago, Lushen said:

edit:  Speaking of Georgia, if people are so fed up with the Republican party like all these surveys are saying, how did Georgia Republicans win the special election?

I have friends who live(d) in that district: it's a very wealthy, very conservative district (has been republican for decades upon decades), so it was already a suuuuper longshot lol

[Nobody]

25 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Speaking of Georgia, if people are so fed up with the Republican party like all these surveys are saying, how did Georgia Republicans win the special election?

Because it's a safe republican seat carefully gerrymandered to always elect republicans. The Republicans went from 62% of the vote to 52%. 10% lost in 7 months. Do you really think there wasn't a loss of republican support in there?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia's_6th_congressional_district

Btw still waiting for you to answer whether or not you believe the sources i posted (and also the health care costs tryhard posted) which were literally datas coming from governments were lies.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Nobody

[Lushen]

22 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

 

I - uh - what? There's plenty of reason for Trump to lose 10-15% in this period. He's attacked Syria, which many of his supporters DID NOT want him to do, he has outright stated that he has revealed classified information that may have put an Israeli source at risk, he outright stated he fired a FBI director because he was investigating any possible ties he has to Russia, he's leading the charge on this objectively bad health care bill that barely anyone outside of Republican politicians support, he's made more than enough buffoonish moves in his short time as president, take your pick. 

 

The 10-15% loss of approval happened before Syria and the classified information. 

Additionally, his Syrian missile boosted his approval rating and was praised by most foreign governments and many people in the US.  And FYI, Clinton told him he should do it. 

 

@Lord RavenI do understand how standard deviation works.  It's one of several kinds of deviations we measure.  Most deviations are based on randomness, but standard deviation is the error of the device itself.  Say you are measuring the temperature of an experiment.  Many things can go wrong, but the standard deviation is how accurate the thermocouple (basically a thermometer) is.  If we see large standard deviations in the experiment, that means our thermocouple sucks.

In the case of surveys, the survey itself is the thermocouple which means all of that deviation is actually just how accurate the survey was.  So, it's not randomness, its actually just that the survey sucked. 

Random error would be more accurate to what you were trying to say, which would be the error caused by whether joe schmoe decided to get up early enough to go vote on election day, which would not be the surveys fault.  But that's not what you were referencing.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Lushen

[Rezzy]

19 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

While that may be true, it's become evident that people do not want to regress to what they had previously.

I would say that it's "popular" with people who don't have anything better, and that's the purpose of it, like you said. It's still popular to keep.

It will likely require some sort of fix sooner rather than later, but that's the million dollar question with no real great solution.  Any sort of change always angers a significant portion of the affected populace.

[Lushen]

Just now, Tryhard said:

 

I - uh - what? There's plenty of reason for Trump to lose 10-15% in this period. He's attacked Syria, which many of his supporters DID NOT want him to do, he has outright stated that he has revealed classified information that may have put an Israeli source at risk, he outright stated he fired a FBI director because he was investigating any possible ties he has to Russia, he's leading the charge on this objectively bad health care bill that barely anyone outside of Republican politicians support, he's made more than enough buffoonish moves in his short time as president, take your pick. 

 

The 10-15% loss of approval happened before Syria and the classified information. 

Additionally, his Syrian missile boosted his approval rating and was praised by most foreign governments and many people in the US.  And FYI, Clinton told him he should do it. 

 

@Lord RavenI do understand how standard deviation works.  It's one of several kinds of deviations we measure.  Most deviations are based on randomness, but standard deviation is the error of the device itself.  Say you are measuring the temperature of an experiment.  Many things can go wrong, but the standard deviation is how accurate the thermocouple (basically a thermometer) is.  If we see large standard deviations in the experiment, that means our thermocouple sucks.

In the case of surveys, the survey itself is the thermocouple which means all of that deviation is actually just how accurate the survey was.  So, it's not randomness, its actually just that the survey sucked. 

Random error would be more accurate to what you were trying to say, which would be the error caused by whether joe schmoe decided to get up early enough to go vote on election day, which would not be the surveys fault.  But that's not what you were referencing.

[Rezzy]

19 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

While that may be true, it's become evident that people do not want to regress to what they had previously.

I would say that it's "popular" with people who don't have anything better, and that's the purpose of it, like you said. It's still popular to keep.

It will likely require some sort of fix sooner rather than later, but that's the million dollar question with no real great solution.  Any sort of change always angers a significant portion of the affected populace.

[Tryhard]

2 minutes ago, Lushen said:

The 10-15% loss of approval happened before Syria and the classified information. 

Additionally, his Syrian missile boosted his approval rating and was praised by most foreign governments and many people in the US.  And FYI, Clinton told him he should do it. 

He's done enough to earn that. It's been five months with rarely a dull day.

The second is actually a sad reflection of the war nature of America, but I brought it up because it did legitimately anger his supporters. And that's good, because I don't like Clinton either.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Tryhard

[Tryhard]

Just now, Lushen said:

The 10-15% loss of approval happened before Syria and the classified information. 

Additionally, his Syrian missile boosted his approval rating and was praised by most foreign governments and many people in the US.  And FYI, Clinton told him he should do it. 

He's done enough to earn that.

The second is actually a sad reflection of the war nature of America, but I brought it up because it did legitimately anger his supporters. And that's good, because I don't like Clinton either.

[Lord Raven]

5 minutes ago, Lushen said:

The 10-15% loss of approval happened before Syria and the classified information.

He listed _a lot_ of reasons.

Quote

Additionally, his Syrian missile boosted his approval rating and was praised by most foreign governments and many people in the US.  And FYI, Clinton told him he should do it.

Source that Clinton told him to do it? lmao

Quote

I do understand how standard deviation works.  It's one of several kinds of deviations we measure.  Most deviations are based on randomness, but standard deviation is the error of the device itself.  Say you are measuring the temperature of an experiment.  Many things can go wrong, but the standard deviation is how accurate the thermocouple (basically a thermometer) is.  If we see large standard deviations in the experiment, that means our thermal couple sucks.

In the case of surveys, the survey itself is the thermocouple which means all of that deviation is actually just how accurate the survey was.  So, it's not randomness, its actually just that the survey sucked.

Random error would be more accurate to what you were trying to say, which would be the error caused by whether joe schmoe decided to get up early enough to go vote on election day, which would not be the surveys fault.  But that's not what you were referencing.

Standard error = a measurement of precision. These standards of precision are often arbitrary but based off of a few things (and the gallup link I posted goes into detail about the methodology behind standard error). The measurements in this case are polling data, with surveys being the measurement apparatus. This is indeed standard error, but there was plenty of random error.

Random error arises from assumptions. In this case, the assumption was perfect voter turnout. That assumption didn't work out. Hence, Trump won, due to poor voter turnout in districts that Obama previously won over Romney, and in some cases Trump won with less votes than Romney, despite Romney losing. Random error is the kind of error that makes you go over your assumptions.

The majority of states were within standard error, but random error crept up in Wisconsin and Michigan.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Lushen]

3 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

And that's good, because I don't like Clinton either.

Something we can agree on.  Clinton was simply not an option for me because I consider her to be a very corrupt woman.  And that's not just the whole server thing, I've known that for years.

Unfortunately bernie is now under investigation for some bank fraud.  Not sure if it's true, the details seem sketchy.  I don't agree with his policies, but I would like to see the democrat party actually bring someone reasonable in next term.

@Lord RavenAh sure, that's a real fact, not a survey, so I'd be happy to.  I know this isn't the most credible news outlet, but its kind of a black and white fact.  http://time.com/4730416/syria-missile-attack-hillary-clinton-assad/

Edited June 28, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

5 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Ah sure, that's a real fact, not a survey, so I'd be happy to.  I know this isn't the most credible news outlet, but its kind of a black and white fact.  http://time.com/4730416/syria-missile-attack-hillary-clinton-assad/

Polls (not surveys) are real fact lmfao stop being so dense, you didn't even attempt to link a poll. Any poll worth its salt has a consistent methodology, and there are plenty of those out there

fyi, Trump didn't really bomb any airfields at all. He didnt listen to a word of what Clinton told him to do here, and he didn't followup. Furthermore, Clinton didn't tell him to do shit; Trump did it on his own. What, do you think there's secret foreign policy meetings between Clinton and Trump after the election?

Edited June 28, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Lushen]

8 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

fyi, Trump didn't really bomb any airfields at all. He didnt listen to a word of what Clinton told him to do here, and he didn't followup. Furthermore, Clinton didn't tell him to do shit; Trump did it on his own. What, do you think there's secret foreign policy meetings between Clinton and Trump after the election?

Clinton said the airfield should be bombed. 

Trump bombed the airfield.  I know his generals advised him, but he had to sign off on it.  Obama was faced with similar situations and chose not to sign off on it.  Trump was originally against it but after seeing photographs and videos of the gassed children he decided to fire the missle.

No, Trump did not call Clinton and ask her for her advice.  My point was there was a consensus on the issue, so either candidate would have illegibly done the same thing.  Whether Clinton would have actually bombed Syria, or was just saying that because she didn't think Trump would and wanted to show the world he didn't have the guts, I don't know.  If the later, I'd say she lost.  

Edited June 28, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

4 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Clinton said the airfield should be bombed. 

Trump bombed the airfield.

No, Trump did not call Clinton and ask her for her advice.  My point was there was a consensus on the issue, so either candidate would have illegibly done the same thing.

Okay, and Clinton's approval ratings wouldn't do well either if she bombed Syria. I'm not sure I understand what point you're making here.

Trump's boost in approval rating happened shortly after Syria, but it was short lived and it most likely came from democratic voters with hawkish views on foreign policy.

Quote

Whether Clinton would have actually bombed Syria, or was just saying that because she didn't think Trump did and wanted to show the world he didn't have the guts, I don't know. If the later, I'd say she lost.

No, it's because Trump ran on an isolationist foreign policy and Clinton ran on a hawkish one. If Trump was truly instigated by this, which is what you are saying, then Trump is also a loser and our foreign policy is far scarier than you could even imagine.

I love how you ignore points.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Res]

7 minutes ago, Nobody said:

Btw still waiting for you to answer whether or not you believe the sources i posted (and also the health care costs tryhard posted) which were literally datas coming from governments were lies.

I am, too.

[Lushen]

2 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

I love how you ignore points.

Because I addressed it somewhere else. 

3 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Okay, and Clinton's approval ratings wouldn't do well either if she bombed Syria. I'm not sure I understand what point you're making here.

Except both me and you just said his approval ratings went up so her approval ratings would have also gone up and you're saying they'd go down?

3 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Trump's boost in approval rating happened shortly after Syria, but it was short lived and it came from some random democrats.

Whether you agree with it or not, it was very well regarded, and not just the US.  Many foreign officials and many Islamic citizens in both Syria and America praised it.  It was not 'a couple democrats' most of the praise came from outside the US.  The only governments I'm aware of that didn't like it was Russia and Syria.  Which is funny because Colbert had another stupid episode where he talked about Russia-Trump collusion that same night despite the fact that Trump made Russia move their planes before he bombed the airfield which Russia hated..Love that guy....

9 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

No, it's because Trump ran on an isolationist foreign policy and Clinton ran on a hawkish one. If Trump was truly instigated by this, which is what you are saying, then Trump is also a loser and our foreign policy is far scarier than you could even imagine.

Clinton?  Hawkish?  You do know Clinton was basically Obama 2.0 with some corruption sauce, right?

Trump is a loser for changing his views?  What kind of logic is that?  It's the first (and only, so far) time I was completely happy with Trump over some other politician.  He had his views, he knew what was actually best for the world was against his views, and he ignored his own personal interest to do what he thought was right.

Our foreign policy is scarier than we can all imagine.

[Lord Raven]

14 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Because I addressed it somewhere else. 

Not the shit about gallup polls, not the shit about standard vs random error, not the shit about me pointing out the flaws in your logic. You have ignored 90% of the points I have put forth and I've ignored zero of yours addressed to me. You haven't addressed shit, and not responding only further corroborates that.

14 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Except both me and you just said his approval ratings went up so her approval ratings would have also gone up and you're saying they'd go down?

Because barely any Democrats approve of Trump, and more Democrats would've approved of Clinton by that point. Except for the Democrats who hate acts of war -- they would've definitely struck her down a bunch of points, since they don't want another Iraq or Afghanistan. You weren't following the Democrats closely this election, were you?

14 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Whether you agree with it or not, it was very well regarded, and not just the US.  Many foreign officials and many Islamic citizens in both Syria and America praised it.  It was not 'a couple democrats' most of the praise came from outside the US.  The only governments I'm aware of that didn't like it was Russia and Syria.

I'm talking about approval ratings. We are talking about approval ratings, right? Heads of state also don't often have views that I necessarily find myself agreeing with.

14 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Which is funny because Colbert had another stupid episode where he talked about Russia-Trump collusion that same night despite the fact that Trump made Russia move their planes before he bombed the airfield which Russia hated..Love that guy....

Collusion between Trump and Russia was purely in the context of the election, and it still doesn't mean Trump isn't fucking up hard. Sending messages warning of the Air Strike to both Syrians and Russians before sending them is suspicious regardless of reaction, and whether or not the purpose was to gain favor from other heads of state (after he repeatedly dragged everything through the mud) is bound to be seen.

14 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Clinton?  Hawkish?  You do know Clinton was basically Obama 2.0 with some corruption sauce, right?

Clinton's foreign policy was and always has been much worse than Obama's. She supported the Iraq war (later regretted it), threatened Iran if she ever became president and was one of the major figures behind the Arab Springs that destabilized the region harder. She would do much more with Syria than Trump ever did, and the no-fly zone was a very controversial part of her platform. Again, were we following the same election?

14 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Trump is a loser for changing his views?  What kind of logic is that?

No, he's a loser if the only reason he bombed Syria was because he felt challenged by Clinton...  which is what your logic stated. This is pointing to a more hair-trigger type of foreign policy, which is much more scary than hawkish foreign policy.

14 minutes ago, Lushen said:

It's the first (and only, so far) time I was completely happy with Trump over some other politician.  He had his views, he knew what was actually best for the world was against his views, and he ignored his own personal interest to do what he thought was right.

Donald Trump never had any views.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/apr/27/tracking-trumps-policy-reversals-his-first-100-day/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/the-flip-flop-president/522840/

Show me any example of going against personal interests in said attack, what his personal interests are/were, and so on. What did he hope to accomplish?

 

And I'm actually not responding until you address Nobody's point about the government data and all of my points about scientific methodology. Contrary to what you believe, you completely fucking ignored it.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Lushen]

8 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Not the shit about gallup polls, not the shit about standard vs random error, not the shit about me pointing out the flaws in your logic. You have ignored 90% of the points I have put forth and I've ignored zero of yours addressed to me. You haven't addressed shit, and not responding only further corroborates that.

Because barely any Democrats approve of Trump, and more Democrats would've approved of Clinton by that point. Except for the Democrats who hate acts of war -- they would've definitely struck her down a bunch of points, since they don't want another Iraq or Afghanistan. You weren't following the Democrats closely this election, were you?

I'm talking about approval ratings. We are talking about approval ratings, right? Heads of state also don't often have views that I necessarily find myself agreeing with.

Collusion between Trump and Russia was purely in the context of the election, and it still doesn't mean Trump isn't fucking up hard. Sending messages warning of the Air Strike to both Syrians and Russians before sending them is suspicious regardless of reaction, and whether or not the purpose was to gain favor from other heads of state (after he repeatedly dragged everything through the mud) is bound to be seen.

Clinton's foreign policy was and always has been much worse than Obama's. She supported the Iraq war (later regretted it), threatened Iran if she ever became president and was one of the major figures behind the Arab Springs that destabilized the region harder. She would do much more with Syria than Trump ever did, and the no-fly zone was a very controversial part of her platform. Again, were we following the same election?

No, he's a loser if the only reason he bombed Syria was because he felt challenged by Clinton...  which is what your logic stated. This is pointing to a more hair-trigger type of foreign policy, which is much more scary than hawkish foreign policy.

Donald Trump never had any views.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/apr/27/tracking-trumps-policy-reversals-his-first-100-day/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/the-flip-flop-president/522840/

Show me any example of going against personal interests in said attack, what his personal interests are/were, and so on. What did he hope to accomplish?

 

And I'm actually not responding until you address Nobody's point about the government data and all of my points about scientific methodology. Contrary to what you believe, you completely fucking ignored it.

Apologies for not multiquoting properly, but I switched to my tablet and it would probably take me 10min to format a multiquote by the same person on this silly thing.

I stopped talking about the random vs standard deviation because you were talking about standard deviation, i corrected you saying I think you're talking about random deviation, then you seemed to make a post saying exactly what I was saying about it and I didn't know how to respond to someone who was arguing with me by saying exactly what I was saying.  If you're intention was to disagree with me on std vs random, I hadn't realized.

Gallup polls are dominantly performed through telephone calls, which I tire of talking about.

As for the 'shit about flaws in my logic', if I didn't respond its because I didn't really know what you were trying to say.  And I don't know if you ignored anything I said or not, but considering I've had to say the same thing over and over again for the last few hours, I don't think you've been listening attentively.  

I tried to follow the democrats during this election, but unlike previous years both the republican and democrats have acted like chickens running around with its head cut off during this election.  Both were pointing fingers, crying wolf, and screaming nonsense I question the sanity of anyone who has actually succeeded in following both parties.  I watched both CNN and Fox News, so I think I got samples of both parties nonsense. 

Anyways, Rezzy and some others have been talking about some health care stuff, and I'm finding the discussion interesting to listen to.  I feel like our back and forth arguments aren't really doing either of us a favor, and I think I've said everything I wanted to throw out there.  Regardless, this was a nice discussion, but I think it's gone on long enough for a forum. :D

[Phoenix Wright]

2 hours ago, Lushen said:

Apologies for the confusion.  Perhaps my short-handed writing was a little confusing.  I have never actually owned a facebook.  The 'threats' were directed at two of my close friends and all of my family members who are Republican.  The result was my family members withdrawing from Facebook and my two friends ranting to me about it.  This is why I choose to not have a facebook (in addition to the fact that if I get drunk at a bar I don't want pictures of me all over facebook, but that's another topic).  A couple examples were: "Everyone who voted for Trump, defriend me right now" and "If you voted for Trump, you're no better than the man who murdered x" (related to a shooting of an muslim citizen). There were 'kill yourself' posts, but they've since been removed.

I wasn't comparing undergrad research to funded research directly.  However, a bunch of funded research comes from graduate programs from different colleges.  The students responsible for this research are 1-2 years into their graduate programs.  In other words, they have 1-2 years more experience and are regarded significantly higher than they should be in my personal opinion.

My view against research is not a view against fact.  I just don't have enough faith in research to call their facts facts.  For example, NASA (like harvard) keeps posting propaganda related to climate change.  Coal mining corporations keep posting propaganda related to climate change.  Each of these only post content in agreement with their views.  In both cases, they site surveys. 

Just to be clear, surveys are NOT fact.  If you say something with the phrase "x% of people" your fact is no longer a fact.  This goes back to the "Clinton winning the election" thing we were talking about earlier.  If this survey were fact, it would be impossible for her to lose the election.  You said that was the media, not researchers - but the media was conducting paid, professional surveys.  The issue is, it seems Republicans are less likely to answer telephone surveys than democrats.  That's the only logical explanation why they were so wrong (by a longshot).  Thus, telephone surveys are bogus.  In addition, you can throw out internet surveys because the internet is dominated by young people who tend to be liberal/democrats.  So what's left? Where are these people getting their surveys study groups from?   The grocery store?  An example would be the "97% consensus" for climate change among climate scientists.  This 'fact' has been referenced by multiple politicians including Barack Obama.  There is a multitude of articles showing that the study group responsible for this statistic was extremely bias and the statistic is absolute garbage.  Despite this, it's STILL being posted all over the place. 

If you truly think Trump's approval rating is below 40%...you're just silly.  There's no way someone who won the election with a SLIGHTLY lower pop vote percentage somehow lost 10-15% in his first few days of office.  Thing is, trump supporters are giving the big "F U" to telephone surveys. 

And 80% consensus against the health care bill?  Well, for starters it seems like it was close to 50/50 in congress.  And in my daily life, it seems to be 50/50.  Should I really believe some research saying my daily life is so misguided?  Maybe they need to figure out why their research keeps failing to represent reality. 

Anyways, that's just surveys.  I know there are other kinds of statistics, but with political science those are usually the most relevant. 

condolences. people shouldn't have to deal with that because of their political leanings. 

raven already said this, but nothing a grad student does alone gets published. at least not for a few years. it's not a sensible comparison in any regard.

surveys done right are fact. i admit i don't hold much faith in a survey, but there's little else soft science people can do.