[Ed] In this thread Trump critics compliment the president - Page 3

Squeegee Beckenheim · 19th November 2018, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by varwoche

Not knowing what an ad hominem is has achieved pandemic status.

"Your argument is wrong because you're dumb" is a textbook example of an ad hominem. Quite literally:

Quote:

Ad Hominem (Abusive)
argumentum ad hominem

(also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, refutation by caricature, against the person, against the man)

Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming Y.

Person 1 is a moron.

Therefore, Y is not true.

Matthew Best · 19th November 2018, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

"Your argument is wrong because you're dumb" is a textbook example of an ad hominem. Quite literally:

Yes, but that's exactly NOT what Nate Silver said. He said the argument itself was dumb, not the person or persons making it.

varwoche · 19th November 2018, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

"Your argument is wrong because you're dumb" is a textbook example of an ad hominem. Quite literally:

Except I already stated that I agree with your broader point. Pay attention please.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 19th November 2018, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Yes, but that's exactly NOT what Nate Silver said. He said the argument itself was dumb, not the person or persons making it.

Fair enough. Then, instead of an ad hominem it is an unconstructive dismissal.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 19th November 2018, 06:15 AM

Originally Posted by varwoche

Except I already stated that I agree with your broader point. Pay attention please.

Then you quoted it to call your own opinion "dumb"? I'm struggling to see what point you thought you were making by posting it.

JoeMorgue · 19th November 2018, 06:29 AM

This is what I'm talking when I said the "Blue Wave" was never really about the numbers.

"Dems take the House, GOP holds onto the Senate, no real massive change eitherway in Governships and State Houses, voter turnout only has a small spike at most" is what... everyone was saying was going to happen and it did happen.

Now both sides are trying to spin a forgone conclusion into a win for their side by trying to pin a narrative on it where every vote in America was a rejection or re-acceptance of Trump despite... that not being what this election was about.

As to all the "Well you see the data shows that if the Whig Party beats the No-nothing party in the Midterm election by a margin of more than .5% that translates to a .07% increase in the probability that a Whig will take the White House in the next election unless Ohio votes against Riverboat Gambling..." at a certain point that stuff just turns into trumped up astrology.

varwoche · 19th November 2018, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Then you quoted it to call your own opinion "dumb"? I'm struggling to see what point you thought you were making by posting it.

Because I think you're lost in the semantic weeds. I certainly didn't call you dumb, although I was tempted after the fact.

Delvo · 19th November 2018, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

"Dems take the House, GOP holds onto the Senate, no real massive change eitherway in Governships and State Houses...

Most governors were Republican and now most will be Democrat, because of R→D flips in at least 7 governors' races (possibly up to 9 depending on the latest updates). The Democrats flipped almost 400 State legislative seats in one shot, compared to the loss of a thousand that's always said to be such a disaster over Obama's entire Presidency. They gained 6 state trifectas (governorship plus both legislative houses), took away 4 Republican trifectas, still flipped 2 more state houses elsewhere, and that's not even counting how many supermajorities they gained, whether as flips or just growth of previous majorities (2 of which happened in the same state). The Democrat pickup in the HOR was bigger than any in the last few decades, some others of which were called "waves" before without denial. Estimates ahead of time were putting it in the low 30s and it ended up about 40. Compared to previous elections, vote numbers swung an average of 10 points toward Democrats even in places so red that they still lost (like Beto gaining about 40 in Texas), and 21 points where they won. And pretty much every direct ballot measure went the left's way, from gun control to marijuana legalization to minimum wage increases to renewable energy to voter registration & voting rights to housing for the homeless to Medicare & Medicaid. And that was with more Democrats than ever putting themselves at a financial disadvantage by not accepting PAC$.

Even in the Senate, the only point for Republicans to cling to as going their way, the map of who was up and where heavily favored the Republicans, as did the fact that several of their "Democrat" opponents campaigned on "look how Republican I am and the Republicans are right about a lot of things", so a neutral average year should have given them 4-6 new Republican Senators, but they still only picked up 2, which is a blue-wave-year failure under the circumstances.

There's a reason why most Republicans & the commentators on their side have mostly been so silent on the election results and Trump has been on even more of a rampage than usual. It's because they know they lost. If the isolated pockets of denial to be found here & there were true, the entire right would all be reveling in it together, not mostly hiding from it. The right's own behavior exposes their own denialist enclave's dishonesty about what happened. For that matter, even ignoring the silent/rampaging ones, even the deniers are exposing it themselves whenever they feel the need to resort to harping on "he's still there" as if that had anything to do with anything; that kind of desperation to find something to call "positive" only affects people who know things are really mostly negative for themselves.

And this was all while some on the right were claiming it would be not just "no wave" but a red one.

JoeMorgue · 19th November 2018, 07:49 AM

The governorship isn't like the House or Senate where a majority means anything. State Governors don't work as a collective. A minor shift in power in governorships isn't all the meaningful.

Mike! · 19th November 2018, 07:50 AM

Maybe everyone should simply agree it was more of a Blue Tide than a Blue Wave, and move on to more pressing matters.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 19th November 2018, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by varwoche

Because I think you're lost in the semantic weeds.

The only semantics I've been engaged in is whether people really meant "completely average and predictable result" when they were talking about a "blue wave". I don't think they did, and I don't really think that anybody actually thinks that they did.

Some examples: https://www.denverpost.com/2018/10/1...-be-a-tsunami/

Quote:

A blue wave is coming.

On Nov. 6, Colorado voters are poised to award the Democrats a political trifecta: control of the office of governor, state House and Senate. The available data and political science of the moment — recent election results, female and unaffiliated voter participation and the strength of the Democrat’s bench — all point to a blue wave this year.

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/dail...wave-is-coming

Quote:

With a surge in support for Democrats across the country, it’s clear that a blue wave is coming this November. Projections indicate that, this fall, the Democrats might not just take back the House but also the Senate, the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and the leadership of the Republican Party. By any measure, especially that of hopes and wishes, there is a blue wave on the horizon.

That's the first two hits on google. And now it's being painted as actually having meant "an average result that's the minimum you'd expect in literally 50% of all elections". I'm making an argument against it because I'm not usually the kind of guy who just dismisses things out of hand, but I think it's pretty much self-evidently nonsense.

Quote:

I certainly didn't call you dumb, although I was tempted after the fact.

Lovely.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 19th November 2018, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Delvo

For that matter, even ignoring the silent/rampaging ones, even the deniers are exposing it themselves whenever they feel the need to resort to harping on "he's still there" as if that had anything to do with anything; that kind of desperation to find something to call "positive" only affects people who know things are really mostly negative for themselves.

Choosing to stick with that straw man while berating others for not facing up to reality, I see.

LSSBB · 19th November 2018, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

The only semantics I've been engaged in is whether people really meant "completely average and predictable result" when they were talking about a "blue wave". I don't think they did, and I don't really think that anybody actually thinks that they did.

Some examples: https://www.denverpost.com/2018/10/1...-be-a-tsunami/

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/dail...wave-is-coming

That's the first two hits on google. And now it's being painted as actually having meant "an average result that's the minimum you'd expect in literally 50% of all elections". I'm making an argument against it because I'm not usually the kind of guy who just dismisses things out of hand, but I think it's pretty much self-evidently nonsense.

Lovely.

The headline of the very first article illustrates my point.
"There will be a wave but it could be a tsunami"

It was a wave. It wasn't a tsunami.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 19th November 2018, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

The headline of the very first article illustrates my point.
"There will be a wave but it could be a tsunami"

It was a wave. It wasn't a tsunami.

You might have to read past the headline. The article is about how taking control of the office of governor, the House, and the Senate would be a bad thing for the Democrats. It's not saying "there's going to be a wave, but it could be a big wave", it's saying "there's going to be a wave, but this could be destructive".

Dread Pirate Roberts · 19th November 2018, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The governorship isn't like the House or Senate where a majority means anything. State Governors don't work as a collective. A minor shift in power in governorships isn't all the meaningful.

Can't it make a big difference for redistricting after the 2020 census?

JoeMorgue · 19th November 2018, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Dread Pirate Roberts

Can't it make a big difference for redistricting after the 2020 census?

It can, and I have said before Republican state houses okaying gerrymandering is largely what got the GOP so many wins in Congress. I'm not arguing that Governorships don't matter, far from it.

But my point was concepts like "majority" don't mean as much (or doesn't mean the same thing depending on how you look at) as a majority in a House of Congress.

51 Senators from the Pro-Widget Party can do a whole lot more than just 49 Senators from the Pro-Widget Party. 51 Pro-Widget Governors can only did a little bit more than 49 Pro-Widget Governors.

LSSBB · 19th November 2018, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

You might have to read past the headline. The article is about how taking control of the office of governor, the House, and the Senate would be a bad thing for the Democrats. It's not saying "there's going to be a wave, but it could be a big wave", it's saying "there's going to be a wave, but this could be destructive".

That's why I referred to the headline. Regardless, waves are not tsunamis. Waves happen, often periodically. It was a wave. It wasn't an ebb, it wasn't sea spray, it wasn't a deluge or a worldwide flood.

It was a wave. Just a wave. Enough of a wave. Enough of the discussion.

Stacyhs · 19th November 2018, 01:33 PM

I agree: Enough. Who cares whether it was a 'wave', a 'tsunami', a 'tide', or a freaking ripple? The numbers are the numbers. 232-200 in the House with 3 seats still outstanding. Some people argue just to argue.

Hellbound · 19th November 2018, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I agree: Enough. Who cares whether it was a 'wave', a 'tsunami', a 'tide', or a freaking ripple? The numbers are the numbers. 232-200 in the House with 3 seats still outstanding. Some people argue just to argue.

But it must have the correct label! Reality doesn't matter, unless we can agree on what label we're using!

I mean, seriously, if you have to choose between the packaging and what's actually there, I think the only rational choice is clear. 9 out of 10 cats prefer the packaging to the product!

Tero · 19th November 2018, 03:26 PM

Best rakes ever! For stopping forest fires.

Elagabalus · 19th November 2018, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I really, honestly, don't think that when people were talking about a "blue wave" coming up to the election that what they meant was "absolutely ordinary and expected gains, as were seen in literally half of the elections in the last quarter of a century".

Really?

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

What's a "blue wave"? I expect the Dems to take over the House by a comfortable margin - like finishing the night with 12 to 20 more seats than the GOP. I expect the GOP to hold the Senate and even perhaps pick up a seat or two. And I expect a few very important governorships to go to the Dems, with a net pickup of 6 to 8.

PhantomWolf · 19th November 2018, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

I guess it depends on how you do it, but if you add the RGB values that graphics programs take as the negative of an image, you get FFFFFF white. But that seems visually counter-intuitive so I took artistic license and made it black.

I literally superimposed the positive and negative images together, you get gray.

WilliamSeger · 19th November 2018, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

I literally superimposed the positive and negative images together, you get gray.

Well, if you did it as a "layer" with 50% transparency, that would add together 50% of each layer, so you'd only get 50% of the total FFFFFF, or 808080 gray. I think white is the correct answer if you superimposed projected images, and black is the correct answer if you looked through stacked positive and negative transparencies.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 20th November 2018, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

Really?

And still more semantic games. Read the post in context. Foolmewunz is questioning the terminology in the first sentence, and then saying what he expects to happen in the next two, not offering a definition of the term in the second two.

Seriously, people, if you have to pretend that headlines, articles, and posts say things that are different to what they actually say in order to try to support the notion that the term "blue wave" was meant to imply absolutely nothing unusual whatsoever, then perhaps it's worth considering that that view isn't built on as solid a foundation as you're trying to imply?

This is exactly the kind of nonsense that the more fervent Trump supporters rightly get raked over the coals for on this board.

varwoche · 20th November 2018, 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

And still more semantic games. Read the post in context. Foolmewunz is questioning the terminology in the first sentence, and then saying what he expects to happen in the next two, not offering a definition of the term in the second two.

So what? Those are more or less the same predictions as the experts. They predicted Dems would perform better than recent elections. That prediction was described as a blue wave. The results exceeded expectations -- slightly. So what?

Quote:

Seriously, people, if you have to pretend that headlines, articles, and posts say things that are different to what they actually say in order to try to support the notion that the term "blue wave" was meant to imply absolutely nothing unusual whatsoever, then perhaps it's worth considering that that view isn't built on as solid a foundation as you're trying to imply?

Seriously people, if you get so hung-up on a term that doesn't actually have a formal definition, but your hell bent to prove that your definition is the correct one... never mind, you can see where I'm heading here.

Quote:

This is exactly the kind of nonsense that the more fervent Trump supporters rightly get raked over the coals for on this board.

BS of a high order.

Add: I suggest you start a Blue Wave thread if you wish to discuss this further. We're off topic here.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 20th November 2018, 05:20 AM

Yes, the best way to prove that you're being entirely reasonable is to straw man me in order to continue to debate something that you've already dismissed as being pointless to debate.

varwoche · 20th November 2018, 05:25 AM

Originally Posted by Mike!

Maybe everyone should simply agree it was more of a Blue Tide than a Blue Wave, and move on to more pressing matters.

The tide is the biggest of all waves. </oceanic pedant>

Mark F · 20th November 2018, 06:38 AM

Trump said he supports the pending prison reform bill.

That's all I got.

Earthborn · 20th November 2018, 07:48 AM

He pronounces "Tanzania" correctly.

Considering his tendency to flub pretty much all geographical names, and the fact that nearly everyone mispronounces "Tanzania", it is kind of odd that he pronounces it as a native Tanzanian. Perhaps we should look up his birth certificate.

carlitos · 20th November 2018, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

My blue eyes nicely complement his orange complexion.

Stacyhs · 20th November 2018, 12:59 PM

He's consistent. He unfailingly puts himself first. You can always count on that.

alfaniner · 20th November 2018, 02:29 PM

He did have a couple of genuinely funny jokes at the turkey pardoning ceremony today.

carlitos · 20th November 2018, 04:06 PM

Hot wife complements him. Like a ying and yang thing, earth/sun, hideous/beautiful.

Civet · 20th November 2018, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Mark F

Trump said he supports the pending prison reform bill.

That's all I got.

The First Step Act seems like a really good idea to me and Trump's support could definitely provide political cover for Republican senators who want to vote for it but are worried about looking too liberal. I won't hesitate to give him credit if it makes it into law.

Trebuchet · 20th November 2018, 08:39 PM

He thinks murdering enemies of the state/people (who work for WaPo) is fine, I think it's disgusting. Complementary!

Lambchops · 20th November 2018, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by baron

He brings people like this out of the woodwork so we can see them for what they are.

"People like this". Hilarious.

Foolmewunz · 22nd November 2018, 09:03 PM

I know others have noted, but couldn't we get the OP Title changed to compliment?

I have worryingly pleasant visions of something having to do with a certain Hannibal, fava beans and a nice Chianti.

LSSBB · 22nd November 2018, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

I know others have noted, but couldn't we get the OP Title changed to compliment?

I have worryingly pleasant visions of something having to do with a certain Hannibal, fava beans and a nice Chianti.

I think hard liquor pairs well with Trump. Lots and lots of hard liquor.

a_unique_person · 22nd November 2018, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I agree: Enough. Who cares whether it was a 'wave', a 'tsunami', a 'tide', or a freaking ripple? The numbers are the numbers. 232-200 in the House with 3 seats still outstanding. Some people argue just to argue.

How many times have the Democrats had the numbers in the House only to do nothing with it?

Stacyhs · 22nd November 2018, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

How many times have the Democrats had the numbers in the House only to do nothing with it?

I fail to see how that has anything to do with my post.

19th November 2018, 05:57 AM	#81
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 22,404	Originally Posted by varwoche Not knowing what an ad hominem is has achieved pandemic status. "Your argument is wrong because you're dumb" is a textbook example of an ad hominem. Quite literally: Quote: Ad Hominem (Abusive) argumentum ad hominem (also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, refutation by caricature, against the person, against the man) Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making. Logical Form: Person 1 is claiming Y. Person 1 is a moron. Therefore, Y is not true.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

19th November 2018, 06:03 AM	#83
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 12,032	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim "Your argument is wrong because you're dumb" is a textbook example of an ad hominem. Quite literally: Except I already stated that I agree with your broader point. Pay attention please.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

19th November 2018, 06:13 AM	#84
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 22,404	Originally Posted by Matthew Best Yes, but that's exactly NOT what Nate Silver said. He said the argument itself was dumb, not the person or persons making it. Fair enough. Then, instead of an ad hominem it is an unconstructive dismissal.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

19th November 2018, 06:15 AM	#85
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 22,404	Originally Posted by varwoche Except I already stated that I agree with your broader point. Pay attention please. Then you quoted it to call your own opinion "dumb"? I'm struggling to see what point you thought you were making by posting it.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

19th November 2018, 06:29 AM	#86
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 14,942	This is what I'm talking when I said the "Blue Wave" was never really about the numbers. "Dems take the House, GOP holds onto the Senate, no real massive change eitherway in Governships and State Houses, voter turnout only has a small spike at most" is what... everyone was saying was going to happen and it did happen. Now both sides are trying to spin a forgone conclusion into a win for their side by trying to pin a narrative on it where every vote in America was a rejection or re-acceptance of Trump despite... that not being what this election was about. As to all the "Well you see the data shows that if the Whig Party beats the No-nothing party in the Midterm election by a margin of more than .5% that translates to a .07% increase in the probability that a Whig will take the White House in the next election unless Ohio votes against Riverboat Gambling..." at a certain point that stuff just turns into trumped up astrology.
	__________________ "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal

19th November 2018, 06:03 AM	#82
Matthew Best Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 6,333	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim "Your argument is wrong because you're dumb" is a textbook example of an ad hominem. Quite literally: Yes, but that's exactly NOT what Nate Silver said. He said the argument itself was dumb, not the person or persons making it.

19th November 2018, 06:35 AM	#87
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 12,032	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Then you quoted it to call your own opinion "dumb"? I'm struggling to see what point you thought you were making by posting it. Because I think you're lost in the semantic weeds. I certainly didn't call you dumb, although I was tempted after the fact.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

19th November 2018, 07:32 AM	#88
Delvo الشيطان الأبيض Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Harrisburg, PA Posts: 7,559	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue "Dems take the House, GOP holds onto the Senate, no real massive change eitherway in Governships and State Houses... Most governors were Republican and now most will be Democrat, because of R→D flips in at least 7 governors' races (possibly up to 9 depending on the latest updates). The Democrats flipped almost 400 State legislative seats in one shot, compared to the loss of a thousand that's always said to be such a disaster over Obama's entire Presidency. They gained 6 state trifectas (governorship plus both legislative houses), took away 4 Republican trifectas, still flipped 2 more state houses elsewhere, and that's not even counting how many supermajorities they gained, whether as flips or just growth of previous majorities (2 of which happened in the same state). The Democrat pickup in the HOR was bigger than any in the last few decades, some others of which were called "waves" before without denial. Estimates ahead of time were putting it in the low 30s and it ended up about 40. Compared to previous elections, vote numbers swung an average of 10 points toward Democrats even in places so red that they still lost (like Beto gaining about 40 in Texas), and 21 points where they won. And pretty much every direct ballot measure went the left's way, from gun control to marijuana legalization to minimum wage increases to renewable energy to voter registration & voting rights to housing for the homeless to Medicare & Medicaid. And that was with more Democrats than ever putting themselves at a financial disadvantage by not accepting PAC$. Even in the Senate, the only point for Republicans to cling to as going their way, the map of who was up and where heavily favored the Republicans, as did the fact that several of their "Democrat" opponents campaigned on "look how Republican I am and the Republicans are right about a lot of things", so a neutral average year should have given them 4-6 new Republican Senators, but they still only picked up 2, which is a blue-wave-year failure under the circumstances. There's a reason why most Republicans & the commentators on their side have mostly been so silent on the election results and Trump has been on even more of a rampage than usual. It's because they know they lost. If the isolated pockets of denial to be found here & there were true, the entire right would all be reveling in it together, not mostly hiding from it. The right's own behavior exposes their own denialist enclave's dishonesty about what happened. For that matter, even ignoring the silent/rampaging ones, even the deniers are exposing it themselves whenever they feel the need to resort to harping on "he's still there" as if that had anything to do with anything; that kind of desperation to find something to call "positive" only affects people who know things are really mostly negative for themselves. And this was all while some on the right were claiming it would be not just "no wave" but a red one.
	Last edited by Delvo; 19th November 2018 at 08:39 AM.

19th November 2018, 07:49 AM	#89
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 14,942	The governorship isn't like the House or Senate where a majority means anything. State Governors don't work as a collective. A minor shift in power in governorships isn't all the meaningful.
	__________________ "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal

19th November 2018, 07:50 AM	#90
Mike! Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it! Join Date: May 2010 Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not! Posts: 30,107	Maybe everyone should simply agree it was more of a Blue Tide than a Blue Wave, and move on to more pressing matters.
	__________________ "Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes... Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes." Last edited by Mike!; 19th November 2018 at 07:54 AM.

19th November 2018, 08:38 AM	#91
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 22,404	Originally Posted by varwoche Because I think you're lost in the semantic weeds. The only semantics I've been engaged in is whether people really meant "completely average and predictable result" when they were talking about a "blue wave". I don't think they did, and I don't really think that anybody actually thinks that they did. Some examples: https://www.denverpost.com/2018/10/1...-be-a-tsunami/ Quote: A blue wave is coming. On Nov. 6, Colorado voters are poised to award the Democrats a political trifecta: control of the office of governor, state House and Senate. The available data and political science of the moment — recent election results, female and unaffiliated voter participation and the strength of the Democrat’s bench — all point to a blue wave this year. https://www.newyorker.com/humor/dail...wave-is-coming Quote: With a surge in support for Democrats across the country, it’s clear that a blue wave is coming this November. Projections indicate that, this fall, the Democrats might not just take back the House but also the Senate, the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and the leadership of the Republican Party. By any measure, especially that of hopes and wishes, there is a blue wave on the horizon. That's the first two hits on google. And now it's being painted as actually having meant "an average result that's the minimum you'd expect in literally 50% of all elections". I'm making an argument against it because I'm not usually the kind of guy who just dismisses things out of hand, but I think it's pretty much self-evidently nonsense. Quote: I certainly didn't call you dumb, although I was tempted after the fact. Lovely.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

19th November 2018, 08:42 AM	#92
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 22,404	Originally Posted by Delvo For that matter, even ignoring the silent/rampaging ones, even the deniers are exposing it themselves whenever they feel the need to resort to harping on "he's still there" as if that had anything to do with anything; that kind of desperation to find something to call "positive" only affects people who know things are really mostly negative for themselves. Choosing to stick with that straw man while berating others for not facing up to reality, I see.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

19th November 2018, 10:12 AM	#93
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 19,851	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim The only semantics I've been engaged in is whether people really meant "completely average and predictable result" when they were talking about a "blue wave". I don't think they did, and I don't really think that anybody actually thinks that they did. Some examples: https://www.denverpost.com/2018/10/1...-be-a-tsunami/ https://www.newyorker.com/humor/dail...wave-is-coming That's the first two hits on google. And now it's being painted as actually having meant "an average result that's the minimum you'd expect in literally 50% of all elections". I'm making an argument against it because I'm not usually the kind of guy who just dismisses things out of hand, but I think it's pretty much self-evidently nonsense. Lovely. The headline of the very first article illustrates my point. "There will be a wave but it could be a tsunami" It was a wave. It wasn't a tsunami.
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

19th November 2018, 11:26 AM	#94
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 22,404	Originally Posted by LSSBB The headline of the very first article illustrates my point. "There will be a wave but it could be a tsunami" It was a wave. It wasn't a tsunami. You might have to read past the headline. The article is about how taking control of the office of governor, the House, and the Senate would be a bad thing for the Democrats. It's not saying "there's going to be a wave, but it could be a big wave", it's saying "there's going to be a wave, but this could be destructive".
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

19th November 2018, 12:04 PM	#95
Dread Pirate Roberts Scholar Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 56	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue The governorship isn't like the House or Senate where a majority means anything. State Governors don't work as a collective. A minor shift in power in governorships isn't all the meaningful. Can't it make a big difference for redistricting after the 2020 census?

19th November 2018, 12:09 PM	#96
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 14,942	Originally Posted by Dread Pirate Roberts Can't it make a big difference for redistricting after the 2020 census? It can, and I have said before Republican state houses okaying gerrymandering is largely what got the GOP so many wins in Congress. I'm not arguing that Governorships don't matter, far from it. But my point was concepts like "majority" don't mean as much (or doesn't mean the same thing depending on how you look at) as a majority in a House of Congress. 51 Senators from the Pro-Widget Party can do a whole lot more than just 49 Senators from the Pro-Widget Party. 51 Pro-Widget Governors can only did a little bit more than 49 Pro-Widget Governors.
	__________________ "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal

19th November 2018, 01:17 PM	#97
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 19,851	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim You might have to read past the headline. The article is about how taking control of the office of governor, the House, and the Senate would be a bad thing for the Democrats. It's not saying "there's going to be a wave, but it could be a big wave", it's saying "there's going to be a wave, but this could be destructive". That's why I referred to the headline. Regardless, waves are not tsunamis. Waves happen, often periodically. It was a wave. It wasn't an ebb, it wasn't sea spray, it wasn't a deluge or a worldwide flood. It was a wave. Just a wave. Enough of a wave. Enough of the discussion.
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

19th November 2018, 01:33 PM	#98
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 5,973	I agree: Enough. Who cares whether it was a 'wave', a 'tsunami', a 'tide', or a freaking ripple? The numbers are the numbers. 232-200 in the House with 3 seats still outstanding. Some people argue just to argue.
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 5,973

19th November 2018, 01:55 PM	#99
Hellbound Merchant of Doom Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day... Posts: 12,895	Originally Posted by Stacyhs I agree: Enough. Who cares whether it was a 'wave', a 'tsunami', a 'tide', or a freaking ripple? The numbers are the numbers. 232-200 in the House with 3 seats still outstanding. Some people argue just to argue. But it must have the correct label! Reality doesn't matter, unless we can agree on what label we're using! I mean, seriously, if you have to choose between the packaging and what's actually there, I think the only rational choice is clear. 9 out of 10 cats prefer the packaging to the product!

19th November 2018, 03:26 PM	#100
Tero Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: North American prairie Posts: 1,279	Best rakes ever! For stopping forest fires.
	__________________ Drain The Trump https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1819/...ee617b6aed.jpg http://karireport.blogspot.com/

19th November 2018, 04:15 PM	#101
Elagabalus Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 3,440	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim I really, honestly, don't think that when people were talking about a "blue wave" coming up to the election that what they meant was "absolutely ordinary and expected gains, as were seen in literally half of the elections in the last quarter of a century". Really? Originally Posted by Foolmewunz What's a "blue wave"? I expect the Dems to take over the House by a comfortable margin - like finishing the night with 12 to 20 more seats than the GOP. I expect the GOP to hold the Senate and even perhaps pick up a seat or two. And I expect a few very important governorships to go to the Dems, with a net pickup of 6 to 8.
Elagabalus Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 3,440

19th November 2018, 05:45 PM	#102
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 17,753	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger I guess it depends on how you do it, but if you add the RGB values that graphics programs take as the negative of an image, you get FFFFFF white. But that seems visually counter-intuitive so I took artistic license and made it black. I literally superimposed the positive and negative images together, you get gray.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

19th November 2018, 06:15 PM	#103
WilliamSeger Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,017	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf I literally superimposed the positive and negative images together, you get gray. Well, if you did it as a "layer" with 50% transparency, that would add together 50% of each layer, so you'd only get 50% of the total FFFFFF, or 808080 gray. I think white is the correct answer if you superimposed projected images, and black is the correct answer if you looked through stacked positive and negative transparencies.
	__________________ ^{"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"}

20th November 2018, 02:46 AM	#104
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 22,404	Originally Posted by Elagabalus Really? And still more semantic games. Read the post in context. Foolmewunz is questioning the terminology in the first sentence, and then saying what he expects to happen in the next two, not offering a definition of the term in the second two. Seriously, people, if you have to pretend that headlines, articles, and posts say things that are different to what they actually say in order to try to support the notion that the term "blue wave" was meant to imply absolutely nothing unusual whatsoever, then perhaps it's worth considering that that view isn't built on as solid a foundation as you're trying to imply? This is exactly the kind of nonsense that the more fervent Trump supporters rightly get raked over the coals for on this board.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

20th November 2018, 05:12 AM	#105
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 12,032	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim And still more semantic games. Read the post in context. Foolmewunz is questioning the terminology in the first sentence, and then saying what he expects to happen in the next two, not offering a definition of the term in the second two. So what? Those are more or less the same predictions as the experts. They predicted Dems would perform better than recent elections. That prediction was described as a blue wave. The results exceeded expectations -- slightly. So what? Quote: Seriously, people, if you have to pretend that headlines, articles, and posts say things that are different to what they actually say in order to try to support the notion that the term "blue wave" was meant to imply absolutely nothing unusual whatsoever, then perhaps it's worth considering that that view isn't built on as solid a foundation as you're trying to imply? Seriously people, if you get so hung-up on a term that doesn't actually have a formal definition, but your hell bent to prove that your definition is the correct one... never mind, you can see where I'm heading here. Quote: This is exactly the kind of nonsense that the more fervent Trump supporters rightly get raked over the coals for on this board. BS of a high order. Add: I suggest you start a Blue Wave thread if you wish to discuss this further. We're off topic here.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot. Last edited by varwoche; 20th November 2018 at 05:17 AM.

20th November 2018, 05:20 AM	#106
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 22,404	Yes, the best way to prove that you're being entirely reasonable is to straw man me in order to continue to debate something that you've already dismissed as being pointless to debate.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

20th November 2018, 05:25 AM	#107
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 12,032	Originally Posted by Mike! Maybe everyone should simply agree it was more of a Blue Tide than a Blue Wave, and move on to more pressing matters. The tide is the biggest of all waves. </oceanic pedant>
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

20th November 2018, 06:38 AM	#108
Mark F Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,600	Trump said he supports the pending prison reform bill. That's all I got.
Mark F Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,600	__________________ So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.

20th November 2018, 07:48 AM	#109
Earthborn Terrestrial Intelligence Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Terra Firma Posts: 6,014	He pronounces "Tanzania" correctly. Considering his tendency to flub pretty much all geographical names, and the fact that nearly everyone mispronounces "Tanzania", it is kind of odd that he pronounces it as a native Tanzanian. Perhaps we should look up his birth certificate.
	__________________ Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli

20th November 2018, 10:34 AM	#110
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 18,838	Originally Posted by Trebuchet My blue eyes nicely complement his orange complexion.

20th November 2018, 12:59 PM	#111
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 5,973	He's consistent. He unfailingly puts himself first. You can always count on that.
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 5,973

20th November 2018, 02:29 PM	#112
alfaniner Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 18,858	He did have a couple of genuinely funny jokes at the turkey pardoning ceremony today.
	__________________ Science is self-correcting. Woo is self-contradicting.

20th November 2018, 04:06 PM	#113
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 18,838	Hot wife complements him. Like a ying and yang thing, earth/sun, hideous/beautiful.

20th November 2018, 04:09 PM	#114
Civet Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,634	Originally Posted by Mark F Trump said he supports the pending prison reform bill. That's all I got. The First Step Act seems like a really good idea to me and Trump's support could definitely provide political cover for Republican senators who want to vote for it but are worried about looking too liberal. I won't hesitate to give him credit if it makes it into law.
Civet Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,634	Last edited by Civet; 20th November 2018 at 04:11 PM.

20th November 2018, 08:39 PM	#115
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Great Northwet Posts: 19,098	He thinks murdering enemies of the state/people (who work for WaPo) is fine, I think it's disgusting. Complementary!
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.