TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
149. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    28 18.79%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    54 36.24%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 33.56%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.68%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 8.72%

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #12951
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Wow... the iamverysmart people are out in force today. I wonder if it's the moon of something.

    First the totally unbiased logical deduction guy posts a picture meant to imply that a crease in someone's dress somehow means they are a man, cause it's apparently completely logical to assume that people would walk around in front of the cameras with a throbbing erection.

    And then the top of his class financial genius somehow manages to lack even a rudimentary understanding of statistics and what sampling bias is, given that the data he presents as proof is just an internet questionnaire filled out by the readers of a blog (and whoever wanted to mess with it) and as such proves exactly as much as the paper it's printed on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Also:

    5. A commenter on Lemoine’s tweet links to this blog post by someone who found the same thing in the General Social Survey. The General Social Survey is much larger and more rigorous than my survey, and there’s no reason to care what my survey has to say when there are GSS results available.

    Thank you for the link. That actually made me more confident in the validity of the information.
    In any case, maybe don't go celebrating just yet:

    Philippe Lemoine says:
    February 12, 2020 at 7:36 pm ~new~

    For what it’s worth, I never imagined this would blow up like this when I posted it, let alone be mentioned on Infowars… It’s just something I did in 5 minutes after the idea occurred to me to check in the data from your survey. (Indeed, I made a mistake in the first chart, which I corrected in another tweet in the same thread, but I just saw that Infowars had used the chart with the error.) When I want to do more careful data analysis, I do so on my blog, as I don’t think Twitter is a well-suited medium for that. Anyway, I basically agree with the points you made, most of which I had also made in discussion on Twitter, although to be clear I don’t believe the association between mental illness and far-left ideology can be completely explained away by this kind of confounding. (I suspect there is a similar, though perhaps not as strong association with far-right ideology, but I’m less confident in this case, because there were very few respondents who identified as far-right in the survey so the confidence intervals are huge and that association is not observed in the GSS. Speaking of which, just so you know, I replicated the finding of the blogger you linked to above with the data from the 2018 edition of the GSS, though the between-group differences were not as striking. I will post this on Twitter when I have time for people who are interested.) The reason I don’t believe the result can be totally explained away in that way is that, as I said on Twitter, given the size of the effect, one would have to make assumptions that I regard as implausible for that to be the case. Finally, one thing I should add is that the GSS is not in fact larger than your survey, at least not if we’re talking about the sample size. In fact, it’s the opposite, the sample is much larger in your survey, but as you say it’s not representative. I have already spent way too much time debating this stuff, which again I never imagined would blow up like that, so I don’t intend to discuss it further here, but I just wanted to make a few clarifications myself.

  2. #12952
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Really Vae? You truly cannot see what brain dead scum you are for posting absolute crap created by Alex Jones? You can't figure that out? Is Alex Jones some sort of super genius to you?

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7911996.html

    What is funniest to me is how Jones claims she has a "very large penis". Granted he doctored the image anyway but to him and I suppose YOU that is a large penis. LOL. How small are your dicks anyway?

    It makes me want to simultaneously burst out laughing and pity you.

  3. #12953
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    Really Vae? You truly cannot see what brain dead scum you are for posting absolute crap created by Alex Jones? You can't figure that out? Is Alex Jones some sort of super genius to you?

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7911996.html

    What is funniest to me is how Jones claims she has a "very large penis". Granted he doctored the image anyway but to him and I suppose YOU that is a large penis. LOL. How small are your dicks anyway?

    It makes me want to simultaneously burst out laughing and pity you.
    ...Ironically, if you were more intelligent, you would have detected that I wasn't serious about that proposition, and instead realized the comedic value. This, along with your servitude to your ideological sensitivities has blunted your perception and left you spinning like fool.

    So the jokes on you...But thanks for the laugh.

  4. #12954
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    You assume it is a worthy waste of time to sluice your shit for a few flecks of bad humour. What happened here is that you POEwned yourself, i.e. serious Vae and joker Vae are indistinguishable.

  5. #12955
    Quote Originally Posted by lowenz View Post
    Yeah, "marxist". Plenty of them in 2020
    LOL.

    Of course a mad alt-righter can say (-> SELF-DECLARED) he's a marxist to blame on the marxism. So these statistics are pure bullshit at its finest.
    That's conjecture. Until you prove that's actually occurring it's just conjecture.


    BUT the really great stuff is that alt-right actually IS marxist-like (you know the Strasser brothers, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Strasser / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Strasser )

    The second point: I've said as much before because both are authoritarian ideologies. What's your point?



    Finally, one thing I should add is that the GSS is not in fact larger than your survey, at least not if we’re talking about the sample size. In fact, it’s the opposite, the sample is much larger in your survey, but as you say it’s not representative. I have already spent way too much time debating this stuff, which again I never imagined would blow up like that, so I don’t intend to discuss it further here, but I just wanted to make a few clarifications myself.
    For someone patting themselves on the back about "understanding statistics" you don't seem to understand much about the topic. Do you know how many samples it takes to construct a 90% confidence in a one-tailed T-test without googling it?

    I doubt it so go ahead and google it now. I guarantee it's a much smaller number than you think.


    Besides which this isn't exactly a new phenomenon. Gallup found the same thing back in 2007 well before this whole "alt-right" was even a thing and it was just "right".

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/102943/...an-others.aspx

    PRINCETON, NJ -- Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent, according to data from the last four November Gallup Health and Healthcare polls. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans report having excellent mental health, compared to 43% of independents and 38% of Democrats. This relationship between party identification and reports of excellent mental health persists even within categories of income, age, gender, church attendance, and education.

    The basic data -- based on an aggregated sample of more than 4,000 interviews conducted since 2004 -- are straightforward.

    Something that MIGHT skew the data though is that there's a hell of a lot more far-left than far right people out there:


  6. #12956
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Vae View Post
    ...Ironically, if you were more intelligent, you would have detected that I wasn't serious about that proposition, and instead realized the comedic value. This, along with your servitude to your ideological sensitivities has blunted your perception and left you spinning like fool.

    So the jokes on you...But thanks for the laugh.
    This grandiose abuse of sesquipedalian verba you so openly put on display are but a pathetic, verily transparent attempt to buttress the otherwise feebleness of the arguments you field. Your loquaciousness is naught but the preening of a ragged peacock proudly displaying it's gilded turds.

  7. #12957
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    serious Vae and joker Vae are indistinguishable.
    Thanks for qualifying your cognitive limitations...From now on when I speak directly to you, I will express concepts in crude, basic terms, devoid of nuance and satire, in order to maximize our personal communication.

  8. #12958
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: 1, Rotation: 0
    Quote Originally Posted by Vae View Post
    ...Ironically, if you were more intelligent
    If you were more intelligent, everybody here wouldn't think you're a wiseass.

    But everybody here thinks you're a wiseass.

  9. #12959
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by hopper View Post
    But everybody here thinks you're a wiseass.
    Yeah, pretty much. It's one thing to say you're smart, another thing entirely to actually prove it. If he could actually back up his opinions in an honest debate, he could probably get away with the pretentiousness somewhat. Problem is, he can't. He mostly ad homs his way through an argument, and bail the moment he has to defend his position with actual knowledge of politics, policy, or history.

  10. #12960
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    For someone patting themselves on the back about "understanding statistics" you don't seem to understand much about the topic. Do you know how many samples it takes to construct a 90% confidence in a one-tailed T-test without googling it?

    I doubt it so go ahead and google it now. I guarantee it's a much smaller number than you think.
    First, maybe you should finally start working on reading comprehension, or else quote me where I have patted myself on the back for "understanding statistics". I have taken a statistics class, though, enough to understand what random and representative samples are and why they are important when you're making inferences about a larger population.

    Secondly, did you not understand the point of what I quoted? Of course you didn't. He's saying that his sample was smaller and that it's not representative, not that it's not representative because of the sample size. Not to mention that you were the one bolding the quote about GSS being larger in the first place.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Besides which this isn't exactly a new phenomenon. Gallup found the same thing back in 2007 well before this whole "alt-right" was even a thing and it was just "right".

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/102943/...an-others.aspx
    Of course, being proven wrong you go to seek other sources to try to save face. Except this poll doesn't show being left wing is correlated with mental illness or anything like it. It only shows that identifying as Republican is correlated more with reporting having good mental health than either identifying as independent or Democrat. Which is not surprising given who tends to stigmatise mental health issues and blame it on all kinds of societal ills, especially gun violence.
    Last edited by Starker; 16th Feb 2020 at 14:55.

  11. #12961
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    The second point: I've said as much before because both are authoritarian ideologies. What's your point?
    "Alt-right" (the national socialism form we call today "Souverainism" ) is nothing more that the classical marxism applied to conservative social schemes and goals to "dialectically" (->marxism=dialectical materialism) legitimate them.

    Point is not about "authoritarism", is about "If marxism is a reductionist pseudotheory alt-right is plain&straight scam".

  12. #12962
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by Vae View Post
    Thanks for qualifying your cognitive limitations...
    It's about time limitations, not cognitive ones, unless you count your amusing assumption that the world owes you a surfeit of quality attention.

  13. #12963
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Quote Originally Posted by hopper View Post
    But everybody here thinks you're a wiseass.
    I don't think he is a wiseass. Quite the opposite. When you eat and regurgitate a turd thinking it's more funny than the original crap taken then that is in no way wise.

  14. #12964
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus

  15. #12965
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Bloomberg is pretty much Donald Trump: Democrat Edition. Basically the same thing, but more eloquent and presentable. He won't have as much appeal to the hard right as Trump does, but I won't be surprised if he ends up drawing in a goodly chunk of the moderates.

  16. #12966
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Oh? Does he also want to abuse the office to personally benefit him and use the Department of Justice to help his friends and persecute his political enemies?

  17. #12967
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    He's already flooded the DNC with money, trying to buy his way through exposure to the presidency, using the very Trumpian excuse that "they're using somebody else’s money, and those other people expect something from them. Nobody gives you money if they don't expect something, and I don't want to be bought." He even has told his own newspaper not to report any negative news against him or any of the Democrat candidates.

    Hell, they've both even switched party allegiances multiple times in the past.

    So does that mean he'll be just as bad? Probably not. Unlike Trump, he's a self-made billionaire, hasn't bankrupted dozens of his own businesses, actually possesses previous political experience, isn't trailed by a million tales of his various legal mishaps, lacks his open disregard for the law, and his charities actually give money to their intended source. He does have that going in his favor. Ultimately, he would be a slightly better choice for the presidency than Trump.

    But does that mean he's a good choice for the presidency? No. I can't help but feel that the guy is nothing but a smarter, more subtle Trump, one able to market themselves to a larger audience. The same shit that isn't being fixed now will continue to not be fixed under Bloomberg. His only real bonuses is that he won't be as outright an embarrassment, and he doesn't appeal much to the extremes.

  18. #12968
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Slightly better? You think he intends to cripple your institutions and democratic norms just like Lord Dampnut and put a bunch of incompetents and grifters in charge?

  19. #12969
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Slightly better? You think he intends to cripple your institutions and democratic norms just like Lord Dampnut and put a bunch of incompetents and grifters in charge?
    No surprise if you ask me.
    Those men think in corporate manner when not plain nepotism (so you got yesmen everywhere).

  20. #12970
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    I'll mention just in case that I'm not saying Bloomberg is a good guy or that he would be a good president. What interests me is Renzatic thinking he would be just as bad and what he's basing this on. Did he run New York into the ground when he was mayor? Did he put a bunch of his cronies and his own family in important positions and demand loyalty to him above anything else? Did he funnel city money to his own businesses? What exactly did he do that makes him basically the Democrat version of Lord Dampnut apart from being an egotistical ass?

  21. #12971
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Slightly better? You think he intends to cripple your institutions and democratic norms just like Lord Dampnut and put a bunch of incompetents and grifters in charge?
    damn Starker, sounds like you would vote for Mao to Stop Hitler............ you are part of the "blue no matter who"......

  22. #12972
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    I'll mention just in case that I'm not saying Bloomberg is a good guy or that he would be a good president. What interests me is Renzatic thinking he would be just as bad and what he's basing this on. Did he run New York into the ground when he was mayor? Did he put a bunch of his cronies and his own family in important positions and demand loyalty to him above anything else? Did he funnel city money to his own businesses? What exactly did he do that makes him basically the Democrat version of Lord Dampnut apart from being an egotistical ass?
    apples/oranges. look at mini mikes record . mike is a nanny state POS worse than trump. stop & frisk worthless mother fucker that he is.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/11/opini...vic/index.html

    https://reason.com/2020/02/11/bloomb...9Fg1ITpcRtNsPA
    "Put the cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods. So, one of the unintended consequences is, 'Oh my god, you're arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.' Yes, that's true. Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. Yes, that's true. Why do we do it? Because that's where all the crime is. And the way you get the guns out of the kids' hands is to throw them up against the walls and frisk them."

  23. #12973
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    I just posted a clip talking about that earlier. Pay attention.

    Also, nobody in your mainstream left is all that left, actually. Even your most extreme left wing candidate Bernie is pro capitalism.

  24. #12974
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    damn, just how far left are you?
    anyways, Mike is a dangerous POS .
    (Meme removed)

  25. #12975
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Bloomberg and Trump are dangerous for different reasons.

    If Bloomberg wins the Democratic nomination, it will set a horrible precedent and fundamentally weaken the party. The traditional primary campaign activities like organizing, fundraising, stumping, pressing flesh are what builds the strength of the party. If Bloomberg can skip all of that and just show up at the door with a bag of money and be welcomed in, and then win the nomination, it renders all of that work moot. Not to mention itís just fundamentally unfair.

    We all know about HRC buying out the DNC before 2016 and all the fairness issues that raised. But even Hillary had to put in a long effort to build an organization capable of winning. And in the aftermath of the 2016 loss, the nominating process was made a little more egalitarian. If Bloomberg wins, all those complaints about fairness in the nominating process will come back even stronger.

    He's also highly likely to lose against Trump, because his nomination will suppress turnout of young voters, minority voters, and the left wing. And I donít see how he has anything to appeal to those blue collar Democrats who went with Trump last time. They wouldn't vote for a centrist establishment type last time around, so why would they vote for a billionaire centrist establishment type this time?

    His record as Mayor is mixed. One thing I didnít like is that he accelerated the gentrification of the city. It seems like Bloomberg never met a high end development project he didnít like. Lower and middle class neighborhoods were razed to make way for swanky new projects, and he raised property taxes multiple times. The result is a nicer city for the rich, but an unaffordable and somewhat unwelcoming city for anyone else trying to make a living there. The other thing I really donít like about Bloomberg is that heís a control freak who doesnít have much use for civil liberties. Thatís enough for me not to vote for him, even if he did run a conventional race.

    In my mind, there's not much point in thinking too hard about whether Trump or Bloomberg is worse for the country, because I won't vote for either one of them.

Page 519 of 565 FirstFirst ... 19269419469474479484489494499504509514515516517518519520521522523524529534539544549554559564 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •