weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 30, 2019 14:53:24 GMT -5
Didn't Trump appoint Haspell, Wray, and Coats? He's slamming his own appointees now because they aren't saying what he wants? That is how he rolls! And his base believes every word! If he told them to cut off their own genitals while wearing Nike shoes, to get onto the spacecraft following the Hale-Bopp comet, they'd do it.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,453
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 30, 2019 15:48:42 GMT -5
... I am reminded of the example of the cave. A man in a cave is in darkness. He perceives nothing, so assumes nothing is there. If he lights a match, there is a little light and he can see a little around him. If he is perceptive, he also sees that there is more darkness beyond that little bit of light. If he lights a lantern, he can see even more, but can also see that there is much more darkness beyond than he thought previously. A powerful flashlight will allow him to see (and know) even more, but again will demonstrate that the darkness beyond is greater as well. The beginning of wisdom is not that you know more, but that you know how much you do not know. ... I like this but do have one problem with it. The pattern of light that is given off by a lantern and a flashlight is different. A powerful flashlight is what a specialist possesses. They might, or might not, possess a lantern as well.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 30, 2019 15:59:54 GMT -5
... I am reminded of the example of the cave. A man in a cave is in darkness. He perceives nothing, so assumes nothing is there. If he lights a match, there is a little light and he can see a little around him. If he is perceptive, he also sees that there is more darkness beyond that little bit of light. If he lights a lantern, he can see even more, but can also see that there is much more darkness beyond than he thought previously. A powerful flashlight will allow him to see (and know) even more, but again will demonstrate that the darkness beyond is greater as well. The beginning of wisdom is not that you know more, but that you know how much you do not know. ... I like this but do have one problem with it. The pattern of light that is given off by a lantern and a flashlight is different. A powerful flashlight is what a specialist possesses. They might, or might not, possess a lantern as well. True, but it is an allegory. I heard something similar once before but "created" this one on the fly. I used the flashlight to suggest that the reach of the light would go further, fully realizing that it would also be directional rather than not, but that moving the beam of light would be sufficient to extend one's "reach." I hoped that part of it would come through clearly.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 30, 2019 16:01:41 GMT -5
I think I would be aware if I deleted a post. Honestly ? Absolutely. Subsequently, only the veracity of your bogus accusation is now in question.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 30, 2019 16:04:23 GMT -5
I like this but do have one problem with it. The pattern of light that is given off by a lantern and a flashlight is different. A powerful flashlight is what a specialist possesses. They might, or might not, possess a lantern as well. True, but it is an allegory. I heard something similar once before but "created" this one on the fly. I used the flashlight to suggest that the reach of the light would go further, fully realizing that it would also be directional rather than not, but that moving the beam of light would be sufficient to extend one's "reach." I hoped that part of it would come through clearly. The Green Lantern prefers the lantern.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 30, 2019 16:08:35 GMT -5
True, but it is an allegory. I heard something similar once before but "created" this one on the fly. I used the flashlight to suggest that the reach of the light would go further, fully realizing that it would also be directional rather than not, but that moving the beam of light would be sufficient to extend one's "reach." I hoped that part of it would come through clearly. The Green Lantern prefers the lantern. He was probably Green with envy because nobody would give him a flashlight.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 30, 2019 16:11:59 GMT -5
That is how he rolls! And his base believes every word! Without question. He can do no wrong and is looking out for us. Donald, Donald trump. All are equal in his sight. Let's forget that he's a blight On everything, both day and night A president who likes to fight And always thinks that he is right
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,453
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 30, 2019 16:12:12 GMT -5
I like this but do have one problem with it. The pattern of light that is given off by a lantern and a flashlight is different. A powerful flashlight is what a specialist possesses. They might, or might not, possess a lantern as well. True, but it is an allegory. I heard something similar once before but "created" this one on the fly. I used the flashlight to suggest that the reach of the light would go further, fully realizing that it would also be directional rather than not, but that moving the beam of light would be sufficient to extend one's "reach." I hoped that part of it would come through clearly. Acknowledged. I was just thinking about a couple of people I know and/or am aware of who think that because they know a lot about something that they are experts on everything.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 30, 2019 16:18:11 GMT -5
True, but it is an allegory. I heard something similar once before but "created" this one on the fly. I used the flashlight to suggest that the reach of the light would go further, fully realizing that it would also be directional rather than not, but that moving the beam of light would be sufficient to extend one's "reach." I hoped that part of it would come through clearly. Acknowledged. I was just thinking about a couple of people I know and/or am aware of who think that because they know a lot about something that they are experts on everything. I know those kind! Almost hate to show them the error of their ways. Oh, who am I kidding!
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 30, 2019 16:20:06 GMT -5
Acknowledged. I was just thinking about a couple of people I know and/or am aware of who think that because they know a lot about something that they are experts on everything. I know those kind! Almost hate to show them the error of their ways. Oh, who am I kidding! Several of them post here daily!
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 30, 2019 16:22:02 GMT -5
Tell me about it!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,077
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 30, 2019 18:22:33 GMT -5
We don't need to impeach him. We just need to let him keep fucking his job up, and let the voters make their choices in 2020.
I'm (R), I agree and I hope to have that same opportunity. And then again in 2024. IMO, there are less Extreme Leftists than the pollsters think - ie, if you sample only the Far Left, of course the polls will be skewed Left. Plus the Think Tank college prof's (Far Left) that design the questions, and score the answers, are impartial, they can't help themselves.
That's why you look at a lot of polls, not just one. Rasmussen, for instance, tends to skew to the right. Others skew to the left. So let's look at a site that analyzes a bunch of poll data and see how what Trump's approval ratings are right now.
Here is 538, with their accumulated poll data, showing Trump's current approval rating sits at 39.8%. Almost at his all time low, but not quite.
projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo
When he first took office, he was at 45.5, but he's been south of that ever since. Unless he finally figures out a way to appeal to voters who aren't in his core dedicated support group, or unless the Dems screw up and run a wildly unpopular candidate in 2020, how do you figure Trump will get a second term? His old buddies the Russian figure out a way to disrupt the election again?
anticipated response: the only poll that matters is the one in November.
and that is TRUE. however, the polls INDICATE how November is likely to go. moreover, it is a statement of political power. if the president is polling at 40%, that means that 60% are not approving of his performance. and that SHOULD mean that 60% of congress SHOULD be working against him, currently. if they are representing the public, that is. which, of course, they aren't.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,077
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 30, 2019 18:23:48 GMT -5
I wouldnt be counting on that solid majority that definitely will not vote for him. We will see next year Wasn't that long ago (2016), when we had polls showing his loss. the polls showed that he would lose the popular vote, and he did.
#dontblamethepolls
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,077
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 30, 2019 18:25:21 GMT -5
National polls of the popular vote accurately predicted his receiving fewer votes. Which means as much as the color blue, in a U.S. Presidential election. false. 90% of the time, it means you are going to lose.
Trump beat the long odds. bully for him. but again, don't blame the polls.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,077
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 30, 2019 18:27:39 GMT -5
So anyway, we are back to the beginning, the point of this thread. You apparently still deny any ability to see Trump's crippling shortcomings, lies, ineptitude and utter contempt for the law? You are fine with his performance? To me, being the president isn't a performance. I don't care about his personal peccadillos. He's already delivered, or working on the things I care about. sorry, like what?
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Jan 30, 2019 18:55:26 GMT -5
You really don't know how legal proceedings work? trump would ordinarily have been deposed quite some time ago just based on the actions of close associates in a common enterprise - even if there was no suspicion on him whatsoever. If a CFO pulled off a huge embezzlement - you think the CEO is not deposed? You think cases are put together without anyone except the perpetrators questioned? What do you think a deposition is, exactly? How about if the CFO did a huge embezzlement and the funds were used to benefit the CEO mightily. The CEO says "I didn't know CFO did that" and that is the end - no deposition? No, that is not how cases are investigated and it's pretty hilarious how trump evading questioning that any other citizen or president would have done ages ago to try to clear their names is taken as evidence of his innocence by some. You don't know anything about me. Your comparison story is naive. how so?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 8:47:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 9:50:37 GMT -5
Absolutely. Subsequently, only the veracity of your bogus accusation is now in question. For some reason I just don't seem to believe you anymore. Don't have that inkling with any other poster over here. So far, all I know about you is the six letter arrangement of your label over here. Going by the past discussion, that's about all I can believe.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 8:47:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 9:55:45 GMT -5
Without question. He can do no wrong and is looking out for us. Donald, Donald trump. All are equal in his sight. Let's forget that he's a blight On everything, both day and night A president who likes to fight And always thinks that he is right To think you complained about me "fucking" with your posts. Game on, lol.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 8:47:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 10:00:29 GMT -5
Wasn't that long ago (2016), when we had polls showing his loss. the polls showed that he would lose the popular vote, and he did.
#dontblamethepolls
Suspect you're aware of the actual error in polling covering the election, and Hillary's mistakes in concentrating on the wrong places to put her campaign effort.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 8:47:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 10:22:46 GMT -5
You don't know anything about me. Your comparison story is naive. how so? Different legal rules for sitting presidents vs private citizens. It was a nice fiction story.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 8:47:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 10:41:20 GMT -5
Which means as much as the color blue, in a U.S. Presidential election. false. 90% of the time, it means you are going to lose.
Trump beat the long odds. bully for him. but again, don't blame the polls.
Wasn't blaming that poll. Just that the popular vote total of the country, doesn't matter in a U.S. Presidential election.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 8:47:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 10:45:33 GMT -5
(I would have quoted you but your post is screwed up.) Yes, I have had multiple people here tell me that I have caused them to change their minds on multiple issues. I can say with certainty that that is something that will never happen for you. You put nothing out there to form the basis of actual argument so will convince nobody. I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. Seem to be mostly answering somewhat loaded, meme questions, that I've seen too many times. Also a few bad hypotheticals thrown in for good measure.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 31, 2019 10:54:35 GMT -5
Absolutely. Subsequently, only the veracity of your bogus accusation is now in question. For some reason I just don't seem to believe you anymore. Don't have that inkling with any other poster over here. So far, all I know about you is the six letter arrangement of your label over here. Going by the past discussion, that's about all I can believe. You didn't believe me in the first place but I retain a modicum of hope that you'll get over it.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 31, 2019 12:32:08 GMT -5
the polls showed that he would lose the popular vote, and he did.
#dontblamethepolls
Suspect you're aware of the actual error in polling covering the election, and Hillary's mistakes in concentrating on the wrong places to put her campaign effort. Again, though, the national polls (at least the better ones) were accurate in what they measured. The national polls were designed to measure the popular vote nationwide. They did that very well for the most part. The analysis of that data turned out to be faulty because it did not go deep enough, but the data itself was extraordinarily accurate. Even if far more exact polling and analysis was done on the state level, it could still have resulted in a legitimate prediction that Hillary would win. The margins in a few states really were that close. In fact, as I recall, the only major poll that had Trump winning was the least accurate of the (I think) eleven polling companies in terms of being correct on the final margin. Was that poll "accurate" because they said Trump would win? No. Accuracy is defined as getting very close to the final number. Polls do not predict with certitude. They predict a likelihood within a margin of error. The 2016 election was not an indictment of the polls or of polling in general.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Jan 31, 2019 12:57:16 GMT -5
Suspect you're aware of the actual error in polling covering the election, and Hillary's mistakes in concentrating on the wrong places to put her campaign effort. Again, though, the national polls (at least the better ones) were accurate in what they measured. The national polls were designed to measure the popular vote nationwide. They did that very well for the most part. The analysis of that data turned out to be faulty because it did not go deep enough, but the data itself was extraordinarily accurate. Even if far more exact polling and analysis was done on the state level, it could still have resulted in a legitimate prediction that Hillary would win. The margins in a few states really were that close. In fact, as I recall, the only major poll that had Trump winning was the least accurate of the (I think) eleven polling companies in terms of being correct on the final margin. Was that poll "accurate" because they said Trump would win? No. Accuracy is defined as getting very close to the final number. Polls do not predict with certitude. They predict a likelihood within a margin of error. The 2016 election was not an indictment of the polls or of polling in general. this is just another demonstration on a lack of understanding of what has actually been communicated. The polls gave hillary an 85% and donald a 15% chance. And this is setting aside any margins of error reported at the time compare that to odds of winning the megamillions - I would love to get a ticket to that with a 15% chance of winning. Even if it was 99.9 to 0.01 - I'm still buying that megamillions ticket! But now every metric about approval or odds or anything is countered with a smug "the polls were wrong!". Their interpretation of the polls was wrong, that is for sure! But whatevs. DJ has tried to enlighten on this to no avail it seems. "The polls were wrong!" "The polls were wrong!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 8:47:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 13:08:58 GMT -5
For some reason I just don't seem to believe you anymore. Don't have that inkling with any other poster over here. So far, all I know about you is the six letter arrangement of your label over here. Going by the past discussion, that's about all I can believe. You didn't believe me in the first place but I retain a modicum of hope that you'll get over it. dondub
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 8:47:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 13:14:42 GMT -5
Again, though, the national polls (at least the better ones) were accurate in what they measured. The national polls were designed to measure the popular vote nationwide. They did that very well for the most part. The analysis of that data turned out to be faulty because it did not go deep enough, but the data itself was extraordinarily accurate. Even if far more exact polling and analysis was done on the state level, it could still have resulted in a legitimate prediction that Hillary would win. The margins in a few states really were that close. In fact, as I recall, the only major poll that had Trump winning was the least accurate of the (I think) eleven polling companies in terms of being correct on the final margin. Was that poll "accurate" because they said Trump would win? No. Accuracy is defined as getting very close to the final number. Polls do not predict with certitude. They predict a likelihood within a margin of error. The 2016 election was not an indictment of the polls or of polling in general. this is just another demonstration on a lack of understanding of what has actually been communicated. The polls gave hillary an 85% and donald a 15% chance. And this is setting aside any margins of error reported at the time compare that to odds of winning the megamillions - I would love to get a ticket to that with a 15% chance of winning. Even if it was 99.9 to 0.01 - I'm still buying that megamillions ticket! But now every metric about approval or odds or anything is countered with a smug "the polls were wrong!". Their interpretation of the polls was wrong, that is for sure! But whatevs. DJ has tried to enlighten on this to no avail it seems. "The polls were wrong!" "The polls were wrong! That's why I don't put any faith in them. I use the final poll only, the vote. We all know the 'national total' ( ) isn't what wins a presidential election in the U.S. My reason for stating to billisonboard that the color blue is equally as important in the election, which started this going. He seemed intelligent enough to like and move on. Those who voted for the winner, don't really care about the verbal salve applied to ease the pain, of those who voted for the losing candidate.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Jan 31, 2019 13:17:36 GMT -5
I don't know if you're aware of it, but Rukh is a professional statistician. She's done a wonderful job explaining how a poll can be accurate yet the result is not what you would expect. I appreciate her explanations.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,453
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 31, 2019 13:17:36 GMT -5
... That's why I don't put any faith in them. ... I put no faith in them either, I put understanding into them.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 31, 2019 13:18:52 GMT -5
The vote? That would be Hillary.
Perhaps you should use the Electoral College.
|
|