ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th September 2019, 09:32 AM   #41
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,393
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
But when looking at anti-establishment stances (the 70% poll):

Round and round we go!

LOL
Well, yeah, actual votes will always Trump polls. That's what we saw in 2016, in fact. People say things in polls but how they ACT is what matters.

Quote:
It seems like you're not looking for "data" to discuss possible interpretations of, but rather rock-solid "proof" of...something, about...something.
And AGAIN you're looking to blame your inability to support your claim on me. This is at least the third time you do that. Why do you do this?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 09:37 AM   #42
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,044
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
And AGAIN you're looking to blame your inability to support your claim on me. This is at least the third time you do that. Why do you do this?
You asked how I interpret the data. Saying "I see it as saying this" isn't making any claims about how things definitely exist.

You keep trying to infer claims that aren't there.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 09:39 AM   #43
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,393
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
You asked how I interpret the data. Saying "I see it as saying this" isn't making any claims about how things definitely exist.
Fine, I can grant that.

But it's still the same arguments and counter-arguments: I think your interpretation is wrong, based on what I said.

It's unfortunate that you didn't address my main criticism of your argument, by the way. It would've been the most interesting bit to discuss.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 11:23 AM   #44
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yeah, because I have no position on the issue; I was asking a question, and then disagreeing with one claim because of the data and methodology.
You missed my point: I don't even know what "the issue" is to you. I thought it was whether or not there is strong anti-establishment sentiment and that is the only position I am arguing for. But then it morphs into either a) Is that reflected in the vote? or b) Maybe the sentiment exists but we have no evidence to prove it.



Quote:
I responded to it in post 776. Joe made a similar point in response to Congress' approval rating.
And I'm not buying that, either. The Tea Party was an anti-establishment vote. So was the 2018 blue wave. Joe's response also ignores a) How many in Congress run opposed in the first place, and b) How much of that opposition is underfunded and has no realistic chance to begin with. With congressional representatives, there's also a tribal trend toward "My guy is OK but those other establishment bastards gotta go!"

And as has been said before, the Trump vote was an anti-establishment vote. I think that's rather obvious.

Quote:
And no, not accepting something as evidence that someone else accepts as evidence doesn't mean you're immune to arguments. It just means you disagree.
I disagree. When a poll shows strong anti-establishment sentiment and you refuse to believe that it demonstrates strong anti-establishment sentiment, I question what sort of evidence would be necessary to convince you of strong anti-establishment sentiment at all. It looks like it would necessarily be evidence of an omniscient sort that can not possibly exist.



Quote:
I'm not sure what details we should be discussing. My main objection to Kelly's claim is that the candidate you vote for has not been established to correlate to a pro- or anti-establishment stance. For some reason no one has responded to this, even though I mentioned it 4 times at least. My second objection is that even if we're to accept that, the fact that the presumably establishment candidate got more vote than the other one shows that the claim is wrong. As for the EC, it makes no sense to even bring it up in the context of this discussion.
Clarifying what specific topic each of us is debating would be a good start. I've already said that maybe you're simply saying her premises aren't sufficient justification for her conclusion, I understand that, but her conclusion may be correct nevertheless. The fact you continued to debate gave me the impression you indeed do believe there is not strong anti-establishment sentiment. I thought that debate was worth having; I have no interest in a debate over whether we have enough knowledge to mathematically prove it's true. We don't.

Satisfied? Can we stop there?
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 11:52 AM   #45
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,393
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
You missed my point: I don't even know what "the issue" is to you. I thought it was whether or not there is strong anti-establishment sentiment and that is the only position I am arguing for. But then it morphs into either a) Is that reflected in the vote? or b) Maybe the sentiment exists but we have no evidence to prove it.
Is it surprising that the evidence 'morphs' to reflect the arguments presented? Kelly's the one who brought up votes, so I addressed that.

Quote:
And I'm not buying that, either.
Well it seems like you're immune to logical arguments, then.

Quote:
And as has been said before, the Trump vote was an anti-establishment vote. I think that's rather obvious.
That it's 'obvious' doesn't make it true. It just means we don't think about it and accept it without further analysis. However the whole point of skepticism is to challenge what seems true to determine what is true.

So, that being said, there are plenty of people who voted for Trump because he was the GOP candidate and would've voted for a broom if it had been on the ticket, and plenty who really thought he would do a good job or that he'd become 'presidential'. None of those are anti-establishment. So saying that a vote for him is an anti-establishment vote is not correct.

Quote:
I disagree.
Observation trumps theory. Polls are are a sample of opinions given largely out of context. Votes are actual actions taken based on opinions. If there's a discrepancy between the polls and the vote, I can't believe you'd suggest we ignore reality and go with the poll instead.

Quote:
but her conclusion may be correct nevertheless.
It may, but it needs to be demonstrated.

Quote:
The fact you continued to debate gave me the impression you indeed do believe there is not strong anti-establishment sentiment.
That I disagree that A is demonstrated doesn't mean I think B is true, or that ~A is true.

Quote:
Can we stop there?
As long as there's something to address and discuss I don't see a reason to.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 12:49 PM   #46
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Is it surprising that the evidence 'morphs' to reflect the arguments presented? Kelly's the one who brought up votes, so I addressed that.
Bring it up with her, not me. What confuses me is you debate my position by refuting (or attempting to refute) kellyb's position. When responding to me, I'd prefer you respond to what I say, not what she's said.



Quote:
Well it seems like you're immune to logical arguments, then.
No. I explained precisely why I don't buy it. For some reason you deleted that part of my response.



Quote:
That it's 'obvious' doesn't make it true. It just means we don't think about it and accept it without further analysis. However the whole point of skepticism is to challenge what seems true to determine what is true.

So, that being said, there are plenty of people who voted for Trump because he was the GOP candidate and would've voted for a broom if it had been on the ticket, and plenty who really thought he would do a good job or that he'd become 'presidential'. None of those are anti-establishment. So saying that a vote for him is an anti-establishment vote is not correct.
No. This comment ignores the fact that he also won the GOP nomination against the establishment Republicans. Did you forget that part?



Quote:
Observation trumps theory. Polls are are a sample of opinions given largely out of context. Votes are actual actions taken based on opinions. If there's a discrepancy between the polls and the vote, I can't believe you'd suggest we ignore reality and go with the poll instead.
But your observation is not in a controlled setting. There are other variables in play besides pro/con establishment. Clinton receiving more votes than Trump is not a sufficient observation to conclude anti-establishmentarianism is not strong, as there are other factors present.



Quote:
It may, but it needs to be demonstrated.
...and yet a poll which shows this, according to you, does not demonstrate this. I still wonder what would demonstrate it to you. You've never answered that.



Quote:
That I disagree that A is demonstrated doesn't mean I think B is true, or that ~A is true.
Never said it did. Note my use of the words "gave me the impression". In other words, you could've have shortened this debate by simply responding to that specific quote and saying, "Yes, that's what I'm trying to say". Instead, you prolonged the debate. I assumed you had a purpose in doing that. Maybe I was wrong.

Let me clarify: Are we actually debating whether or not anti-establishment system is strong, or are you focused on some epistemological aspect of whether we can conclude that or not, or some corollary to that? If it's the former, I'm game; either of the latter, I'm not particularly interested.



Quote:
As long as there's something to address and discuss I don't see a reason to.
I don't really care one way or the other. I just don't wanna piss others off by perpetuating a derail.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 02:11 AM   #47
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,393
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Bring it up with her, not me.
I did.

Quote:
No. I explained precisely why I don't buy it. For some reason you deleted that part of my response.
It was a joke, man.

Quote:
No. This comment ignores the fact that he also won the GOP nomination against the establishment Republicans. Did you forget that part?
How is that relevant? It's not like he got a majority of the votes there either.

Quote:
But your observation is not in a controlled setting. There are other variables in play besides pro/con establishment.
There IS no controlled setting in this case. All we know is how people voted. What people actually believe is more accurately reflected in what they actually do, rather than what they claim, wouldn't you agree?

Quote:
...and yet a poll which shows this, according to you, does not demonstrate this.
I explained exactly WHY it doesn't demonstrate this.

Quote:
Let me clarify: Are we actually debating whether or not anti-establishment system is strong, or are you focused on some epistemological aspect of whether we can conclude that or not, or some corollary to that?
The former. I don't even know what the latter would entail, and that sounds like a boring thing to debate.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 04:31 AM   #48
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I did.
That part was rhetorical, the real question was why did you bring it up with me?




Quote:
It was a joke, man.

I noticed the winking smilie, sure, but I still thought it was worth pointing out what I pointed out.



Quote:
How is that relevant? It's not like he got a majority of the votes there either.

???? How could it possibly not be relevant? And why bring up "majority"? Something can be a strong trend yet not be a full majority, particularly when considering that other factors are in play (such as fear of voting for a moronic lunatic). Indeed, Trump got a massive plurality over the other candidates: He had 14 million total votes in the primary. Next highest total? Ted Cruz, with 7.8 million. Trump's total was 80% more than the second place contender, despite being a moronic lunatic. Think about that. Does that mean nothing to you? You're not gonna get a 100% rigorous mathematical proof of what I am trying to tell you; I don't think the evidence can get much stronger than this.



Quote:
There IS no controlled setting in this case. All we know is how people voted. What people actually believe is more accurately reflected in what they actually do, rather than what they claim, wouldn't you agree?

Sure. Now, with that in mind, try reading my last paragraph again.



Quote:
I explained exactly WHY it doesn't demonstrate this.
If you're not talking about the fact that Congress has a 96% reelection rate then I'm not sure what you're referring to. And I rebutted that in post 823, which I do not recall you responding to. Looks to me like the ball remains in your court on this front.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 04:45 AM   #49
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,393
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
That part was rhetorical, the real question was why did you bring it up with me?
Well, I assumed that since you pitched in on my conversation with Kelly you wanted to discuss the various aspects of the conversation. You can't blame me for making that assumption.

Quote:
???? How could it possibly not be relevant?
I just explained it. He got a plurality in the primaries against a very weak field, and unimpressive votes in the general. That's beside the fact that a vote for him is not necessarily a vote for the anti-establishment, as I've already said more than once. So that he won the nomination doesn't tell us much about anti-establishment sentiments.

Quote:
Something can be a strong trend yet not be a full majority
Kelly's entire argument rested on 'anti-establishment' being the largest group. Trump's support is a subset of a subset. He doesn't have any strong support at all.

Quote:
And I rebutted that in post 823, which I do not recall you responding to.
I didn't respond because it has no bearing on what you were replying to. If I always respond to every part of every post, those posts will get very long very quickly, so I'm cutting to the most important parts, whenever possible. And since you've agreed that votes are more relevant to people's beliefs than polls, I don't know what else there is to discuss now.

Quote:
Looks to me like the ball remains in your court on this front.
Why do so many people treat these discussions as games, with points and turns and such? If you think there's something I didn't address, then you can ask a question or quote the bit you want me to respond to.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 04:59 AM   #50
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post



I just explained it. He got a plurality in the primaries against a very weak field, and unimpressive votes in the general. That's beside the fact that a vote for him is not necessarily a vote for the anti-establishment, as I've already said more than once. So that he won the nomination doesn't tell us much about anti-establishment sentiments.
What makes you think it was a weak field? The fact that they lost to Trump, or did you have some less circular evidence than that?

And if a non-establishment candidate winning the nomination doesn't tell us much about anti-establishment sentiments (voting), and if a poll saying 70% have anti-establishment sentiments doesn't tell us much about establishment sentiments (polling), then I'll ask again:

Just what sort of evidence, hypothetically, would it take to convince you strong anti-establishment sentiments exist?

I've never seen you answer that question and I believe it's now the third time I've asked you.


Quote:
Kelly's entire argument rested on 'anti-establishment' being the largest group. Trump's support is a subset of a subset. He doesn't have any strong support at all.
I consider support from a stable 40% of the population to be rather strong, myself.



Quote:
I didn't respond because it has no bearing on what you were replying to. If I always respond to every part of every post, those posts will get very long very quickly, so I'm cutting to the most important parts, whenever possible. And since you've agreed that votes are more relevant to people's beliefs than polls, I don't know what else there is to discuss now.
???? How does pointing out non-establishment waves in congressional votes in 2010 and 2018, as well as tribal "My representative is OK but yours has got to go!" have no bearing on this?



Quote:
Why do so many people treat these discussions as games, with points and turns and such? If you think there's something I didn't address, then you can ask a question or quote the bit you want me to respond to.
Relax, it's merely a turn of phrase. I will note, however, that I pointed you to where my quote was (post 823), yet you choose instead to complain about the language I used rather than, you know, respond to the actual subject.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 05:08 AM   #51
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,393
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
What makes you think it was a weak field? The fact that they lost to Trump, or did you have some less circular evidence than that?
My personal opinion of the candidates at the time, and the fact that none of them, Trump included, got much in the way of voter excitement. Trump more than the others, mind you, because of his wrecking ball personality.

Quote:
Just what sort of evidence, hypothetically, would it take to convince you strong anti-establishment sentiments exist?

I've never seen you answer that question and I believe it's now the third time I've asked you.
Because it's a stupid question. The arguments presented are, for my part, unconvincing for the reasons I gave. I don't need to stipulate some hypothetical argument which would do the trick on top of that.

Besides, you should be able to derive the answer from our conversations. I need more than just polls, and a more sound victory than Trump has had, and a demonstration that a vote for Trump is very likely to be motivated by anti-establishment feelings, especially since Clinton got more votes than he did.

Quote:
I consider support from a stable 40% of the population to be rather strong, myself.
Yes and no. Let's not forget that if the GOP had Stalin as President he still probably wouldn't drop much lower than 40%. There are sizeable portions of the electorate who support or oppose the president no matter what just because of the party he belongs to.

Quote:
???? How does pointing out non-establishment waves in congressional votes in 2010 and 2018, as well as tribal "My representative is OK but yours has got to go!" have no bearing on this?
Sorry, I've lost track of what your argument is, here.

Quote:
I will note, however, that I pointed you to where my quote was (post 823), yet you choose instead to complain about the language I used rather than, you know, respond to the actual subject.
Because you keep complaining about what I haven't answered and should have, and it's getting old fast. Just ask the question or make the point you want me to respond to specifically.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 05:38 AM   #52
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
My personal opinion of the candidates at the time, and the fact that none of them, Trump included, got much in the way of voter excitement. Trump more than the others, mind you, because of his wrecking ball personality.
Opinion??? Yeah, that's a foundation for good solid evidence. And if you don't think Trump got much in the way of voter excitement then you must have never witnessed a Trump rally. I can't stand the man, myself, but I can't deny he generates voter excitement.....and he was the only GOP candidate to do so. The others failed to do so because they were part of........The Establishment.



Quote:
Because it's a stupid question. The arguments presented are, for my part, unconvincing for the reasons I gave. I don't need to stipulate some hypothetical argument which would do the trick on top of that.
And your rebuttals are unconvincing for the reasons I gave.

It's not a stupid question. As I've said before, a mathematically certain proof of this is simply not possible. You dismiss polling results. You dismiss voting results. Outside of things like mathematics there are always enough variables to provide room for doubt; one simply goes where the preponderance of evidence. If polling and voting are sufficient, I'm evidently wasting my time because I've begun to think that the only level of proof that will convince you is mathematical certainty. Am I wrong? If so, then please let me know what kind of evidence you require, because you've already dismissed sound evidence.

Quote:
Besides, you should be able to derive the answer from our conversations. I need more than just polls, and a more sound victory than Trump has had, and a demonstration that a vote for Trump is very likely to be motivated by anti-establishment feelings, especially since Clinton got more votes than he did.

Once again, you ignore that we aren't running in a vacuum. Clinton got more votes because there was another trend in play: People afraid of voting for a moronic lunatic.



Quote:
Yes and no. Let's not forget that if the GOP had Stalin as President he still probably wouldn't drop much lower than 40%. There are sizeable portions of the electorate who support or oppose the president no matter what just because of the party he belongs to.
The last GOP president had support that dropped to 20 some percent. You are simply wrong here. And none of this is even relevant to my comment: Stable 40% is rather strong, particularly when they support an incompetent moron like Trump.



Quote:
Sorry, I've lost track of what your argument is, here.
I'll have to come back to this one, I'm running short on time before class.



Quote:
Because you keep complaining about what I haven't answered and should have, and it's getting old fast. Just ask the question or make the point you want me to respond to specifically.
I did. You still refused to answer, for some reason.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 05:43 AM   #53
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Trump more than the others, mind you, because of his wrecking ball personality.



Oh really? Because of his wrecking ball personality??? Did you mean a wrecking ball against the establishment, or something else???

I'm starting to think you know I'm right and are just now starting to realize it.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 06:27 AM   #54
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,393
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Opinion??? Yeah, that's a foundation for good solid evidence.
Sorry, but what is "good" or "bad" is necessarily an opinion. I said the candidates were weak. That's not a scientific claim. It's a subjective one. Why are you surprised that the basis for that is personal?

Quote:
And if you don't think Trump got much in the way of voter excitement then you must have never witnessed a Trump rally.
Come on, Cabbage. That there are people who are excited by Trump enough to fill a hall doesn't mean that he energised the conservative voting bloc. He trounced the other candidates because they were weak and he was boisterious and new and fun. And he still got fewer votes in the general than Romney, who's, let's say it, less than exciting himself. We're not talking Reagan levels of popularity here.

Quote:
It's not a stupid question.
It is, because it has nothing to do with anyone else's claims. They either stand on their own merit or they don't. What I'd accept depends on what's presented.

Quote:
You dismiss polling results. You dismiss voting results.
Now that's not true. I've USED voting results to dismiss the polls.

Quote:
Once again, you ignore that we aren't running in a vacuum. Clinton got more votes because there was another trend in play: People afraid of voting for a moronic lunatic.
Unsupported assertion.

Quote:
The last GOP president had support that dropped to 20 some percent. You are simply wrong here.
No I'm not. His support never dropped below 40 in the first 5 years of his presidency, and only dipped to around 25 briefly in late '08. He ended up with around 35. And he got the US into two unpopular wars. Trump's an idiot but so far he hasn't done anything that has had catastrophic effects on the country. That might be on the horizon, mind you.

Quote:
And none of this is even relevant to my comment: Stable 40% is rather strong, particularly when they support an incompetent moron like Trump.
It is absolutely relevant. If tribalism is at play, even an incompetent moron like Trump will maintain that level of support, barring a catastrophe.

Quote:
I did. You still refused to answer, for some reason.
I TOLD you the reason. This is at least the third or fourth time that you say things that are shown wrong by the very post you quote. Is it deliberate, or are you just not paying attention?

I told you that I won't hunt for the exact quote you want me to address. Either post it, and I'll address it, or drop the issue.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 06:28 AM   #55
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,393
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Oh really? Because of his wrecking ball personality??? Did you mean a wrecking ball against the establishment, or something else???

I'm starting to think you know I'm right and are just now starting to realize it.
Oh, so now I secretly agree with you!

I never denied that Trump's anti-establishment antics were part of his appeal. If you thought I did, you weren't paying attention.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 08:36 AM   #56
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Sorry, but what is "good" or "bad" is necessarily an opinion. I said the candidates were weak. That's not a scientific claim. It's a subjective one. Why are you surprised that the basis for that is personal?
I'm not surprised, but the issue is that you contributed that as evidence that Trump's plurality was not based on strong anti-establishment sentiments (I'm tired of typing that out: SAES). If it's merely your opinion then it's no longer evidence for anything. That was the point.


Quote:
Come on, Cabbage. That there are people who are excited by Trump enough to fill a hall doesn't mean that he energised the conservative voting bloc. He trounced the other candidates because they were weak and he was boisterious and new and fun. And he still got fewer votes in the general than Romney, who's, let's say it, less than exciting himself. We're not talking Reagan levels of popularity here.
I never claimed SAES was universal. And saying there were "enough to fill a hall" is disingenuous: They were enough to fill halls at many cities throughout the country. And there you go using the others were "weak candidates" again when that is merely your opinion, not evidence. Hell, I can think of at least three of them that were former governors: Bush, Kasich, and Huckabee. People that won governorships are weak candidates? Come on, Belz. And the fewer votes are because more people sat out: People that refused to vote for Trump (anti-moron sentimate) AND refused to vote for Hillary (SAES).



Quote:
It is, because it has nothing to do with anyone else's claims. They either stand on their own merit or they don't. What I'd accept depends on what's presented.
But I've countered every counter-argument you've made. They fell flat and you replaced them with nothing. At this point I'm wondering what you base your conclusion on; you have no evidence I have not refuted.



Quote:
Now that's not true. I've USED voting results to dismiss the polls.
Yet you dismiss voting results in the GOP primary. And seriously, why would people flock to a moron like Trump? You keep saying Hillary got more votes. This is true. Trump's vote total is quite a significant amount. I don't think a con-artist could win that many votes without anger at the status quo (SAES). Hell, you even admit that: Wrecking Ball and Boisterous are words you used to describe his success. Both are examples of SAES.



Quote:
Unsupported assertion.
Seriously? You're unaware that people refused to vote for Trump because of fears that he was a moronic lunatic? Try facing reality.



Quote:
No I'm not. His support never dropped below 40 in the first 5 years of his presidency, and only dipped to around 25 briefly in late '08. He ended up with around 35. And he got the US into two unpopular wars. Trump's an idiot but so far he hasn't done anything that has had catastrophic effects on the country. That might be on the horizon, mind you.
He's committed perjury and other various crimes. He sucks up to dictators and offends allies, and yet I don't recall Trump dipping even as far down as 35%. Yet you dismiss my counterexample....just like you dismiss all evidence that proves you wrong.

(I should mention that Bush also got a major boost in approval ratings from 9/11. It took a while for that to erode).



Quote:
It is absolutely relevant. If tribalism is at play, even an incompetent moron like Trump will maintain that level of support, barring a catastrophe.
I don't think that's accurate. No president has weathered his own flubs like Trump. It's unpresidented.


Quote:
I TOLD you the reason. This is at least the third or fourth time that you say things that are shown wrong by the very post you quote. Is it deliberate, or are you just not paying attention?

I told you that I won't hunt for the exact quote you want me to address. Either post it, and I'll address it, or drop the issue.
I don't recall you showing anything I've posted to be wrong. For example, I claim Trump winning both the primary and the election indicate SAES. You claim Hillary got more votes and we can't be sure why people voted for a moron like Trump. I respond that other factors are in play, SAES isn't occurring in a vacuum here, some people are also afraid of voting for a moron, despite SAES. Also, why would people vote for a moron if they weren't angry with the status quo. Then you say no but provide no supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Oh, so now I secretly agree with you!

I never denied that Trump's anti-establishment antics were part of his appeal. If you thought I did, you weren't paying attention.

And I agree, and once again I'm wondering what we're even debating. Just how strong that appeal was? Like, do we need to attach a number to it? Because whenever I point out "This indicates anti-establishment antics were part of his appeal" you inevitably bend over backwards to find reasons it does not. For someone who agrees AES are part of his appeal, you certainly go out of your way to deny evidence of that. Is it simply the "strong" you object to?

In that case, I think we simply have different perceptions on what "strong" is when applied to SAES or approval or whatever. For example, I think stable 40% approval is rather strong. You do not. In that case, I see no point in continuing this debate.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 08:48 AM   #57
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post

I don't recall you showing anything I've posted to be wrong. For example, I claim Trump winning both the primary and the election indicate SAES. You claim Hillary got more votes and we can't be sure why people voted for a moron like Trump. I respond that other factors are in play, SAES isn't occurring in a vacuum here, some people are also afraid of voting for a moron, despite SAES. Also, why would people vote for a moron if they weren't angry with the status quo. Then you say no but provide no supporting evidence.





I'd like to amend this for a better example

I claim there's SAES because there's actually a poll saying 70% of Americans have SAES.

You rebut that, claiming but Hillary got more votes.

I respond that there are other factors in play: Fear of voting for a moronic lunatic. 70% SAES is consistent with Hillary getting more votes: "I'm sick to death of establishment, corporate presidents. I think Trump is anti-establishment, but I'm also afraid of voting for someone who can't tie his own shoes. I guess it's Hillary for me"......not to mention, many can see through Trump's con, and that he's really NOT anti-establishment so much as PRO-TRUMP. He certainly will continue to suck the teat of corporations. That another reason Hillary got more votes. But it's ALL CONSISTENT WITH 70% SAES.

......and then I never heard you make a significant rebuttal to that.

You didn't prove me wrong, I rebutted and then you just stopped trying to prove me wrong on that front.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 09:02 AM   #58
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,393
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
If it's merely your opinion then it's no longer evidence for anything.
I didn't say it was evidence. But do you think the field was strong in any way?

Quote:
I never claimed SAES was universal.
It doesn't need to be. The point is that in any area with millions, you'll find a few thousand in support of anything, enough to fill a hall. It doesn't tell you anything about how strong the support it in said area.

Quote:
Hell, I can think of at least three of them that were former governors: Bush, Kasich, and Huckabee. People that won governorships are weak candidates? Come on, Belz.
Come on Belz... what? The two aren't mutually-exclusive. The question is how much support did they have.

Quote:
But I've countered every counter-argument you've made.
You've responded to them. I could say the same thing. I've countered every counter-counter-argument you've made! Why don't you agree with me! Waaah!

Quote:
Yet you dismiss voting results in the GOP primary.
I don't. I've addressed and discussed them.

Quote:
And seriously, why would people flock to a moron like Trump?
For a host of reasons, surely.

Quote:
You keep saying Hillary got more votes. This is true. Trump's vote total is quite a significant amount. I don't think a con-artist could win that many votes without anger at the status quo (SAES). Hell, you even admit that: Wrecking Ball and Boisterous are words you used to describe his success. Both are examples of SAES.
No, they are not. There's often an undercurrent of dissatisfaction, but it has to translate to tangible actions. In this case, votes. I keep repeating myself, but Romney was a stronger candidate than Trump and he couldn't beat Obama by a longshot. So it's hard to accept the claim that Trump somehow energised anti-establishment sentiments.

ETA: Look at video games. There's a good current of dissatisfaction concerning big games in the last few years because of predatory monetization practices, and yet for all the whining online, they keep buying the games, and complaining, every time. The complaining is worth nothing unless it translates into the companies' bottom lines.

Quote:
Seriously? You're unaware that people refused to vote for Trump because of fears that he was a moronic lunatic? Try facing reality.
There you go again: finding a non-zero group of people who believe X and using that to conclude that there's a strong feeling toward X. It doesn't work that way. I'm sure there are people who voted against Trump for that reason, but how many? You can't use it to support your claim unless you can show that there was a significant proportion of them.

Quote:
He's committed perjury and other various crimes. He sucks up to dictators and offends allies, and yet I don't recall Trump dipping even as far down as 35%.
You may not have noticed but the country has become much more polarised in recent decades. You must've noticed on this very forum how right-wingers twist themselves into MarineLand water slides in order to defend or ignore the magnitude of his sins. I told you: it's tribalism. My side, right or wrong.

Quote:
I don't think that's accurate. No president has weathered his own flubs like Trump. It's unpresidented.
I presume that's an intentional pun.

Anyway, so what? It's all covered in the argument I presented. Why do you think it's wrong? The very thing you mention here is evidence that I'm right -- that people more and more tend to ignore the sins of their own side.

Quote:
I don't recall you showing anything I've posted to be wrong.
And you say that I ignore evidence that proves me wrong. Very nice.

Quote:
Because whenever I point out "This indicates anti-establishment antics were part of his appeal" you inevitably bend over backwards to find reasons it does not.
You're getting dangerously close to lying, here. I've already said that it WAS. What I DID say was that a vote for him was not NECESSARILY a vote against the establishment. Again, you need to read what I actually post, not add meaning between the lines.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 6th September 2019 at 09:05 AM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 10:26 AM   #59
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,044
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I claim there's SAES because there's actually a poll saying 70% of Americans have SAES.

You rebut that, claiming but Hillary got more votes.
it's also worth noting that 43% of the folks who ended up voting democrat also actually preferred the anti-establishment democrat, Sanders, ad Clinton only got 55% of the democratic vote in the primary.

So, we have 43% of democrats who actually preferred the anti-establishment democratic candidate, and what % of republicans voted for the anti-establishment republican candidates in the republican primary? Cruz was widely seen as an anti-establishment crusader in the eyes of the Republican public, too.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-re...on-of-ted-cruz

Quote:
Just a couple of months in, the Texas freshman has made clear his commitment to raising as much hell and as many eyebrows as possible—much to the delight of the Tea Party anti-establishment conservatives who brung him to the dance.
Quote:
Such feistiness has prompted a wave of media marveling over Cruz’s clash with his party’s establishment. “Establishment attacks only make Cruz more popular with supporters,” read a recent headline on CNN.com. Or this cheeky bit from The Atlantic Wire: “Senate reaches rare bipartisan agreement on Ted Cruz.” (Not in a good way.) Meanwhile, the conservative blogosphere has gone gaga over Cruz’s sticking it to “the establishment.” At last! A true revolutionary who will not be cowed by the Beltway sell-outs.
What % of the republican vote did the establishment republicans get in their primary?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 11:50 AM   #60
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I didn't say it was evidence. But do you think the field was strong in any way?
I would never vote Republican at this point, but trying to perceive it as a conservative: Yes. Cruz had a lot of support. Christie was considered a shoe-in by many before bridgegate. Bush comes from a dynastic family with a whole lot of financial support. Five in total were former governors. none of that seems weak to me.



Quote:
It doesn't need to be. The point is that in any area with millions, you'll find a few thousand in support of anything, enough to fill a hall. It doesn't tell you anything about how strong the support it in said area.
And yet the poll showing 70% have SAES counts for nothing. Go figure.



Quote:
Come on Belz... what? The two aren't mutually-exclusive. The question is how much support did they have.

Come on Belz. The question is most definitely not how much support they have.. It's whether or not they are weak. They are weak because they didn't have much support. They don't have much support because they are weak. This is your argument. It's circular. They're not mutually exclusive sure, but neither are they perfectly correlated. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF. THE. ESTABLISHMENT. CANDIDATES. GOT. AROUND. FIFTY. PERCENT. OR. LESS. THAN. TRUMP'S. TOTAL. IN. THE. PRIMARY. The two biggest vote getters were Trump and Cruz, both painted as anti-establishment. THAT correlates with anti-establishment sentiments, not that all the others were universally weak.


Quote:
You've responded to them. I could say the same thing. I've countered every counter-counter-argument you've made! Why don't you agree with me! Waaah!

Well, you never countered my counter. You present as a "counter argument" (Hillary got more votes) that is consistent with my claim of SAES. Generally, to be a counter-argument, it should EXclude that which you are arguing against, not INclude and be consistent.

And you're the only one that's whining.



[quote]I don't. I've addressed and discussed them.[quote]

With your Weak implies no support implies Weak circular BS.



Quote:
For a host of reasons, surely.
Name one that's mutually exclusive with SAES. Provide evidence that that was actually a reason for Trump votes.



Quote:
No, they are not. There's often an undercurrent of dissatisfaction, but it has to translate to tangible actions. In this case, votes. I keep repeating myself, but Romney was a stronger candidate than Trump and he couldn't beat Obama by a longshot. So it's hard to accept the claim that Trump somehow energised anti-establishment sentiments.

ETA: Look at video games. There's a good current of dissatisfaction concerning big games in the last few years because of predatory monetization practices, and yet for all the whining online, they keep buying the games, and complaining, every time. The complaining is worth nothing unless it translates into the companies' bottom lines.
For one thing, Obama was far more anti-establishment than Romney. Sure, Trump didn't get the most votes. You act as if that's the only thing worth saying or pointing out. As if that's the only measure. The differences were two percentage points. Trump won the election. These things are measurable too, and indicate SAES. It doesn't begin and end with popular vote, period.




Quote:
There you go again: finding a non-zero group of people who believe X and using that to conclude that there's a strong feeling toward X. It doesn't work that way. I'm sure there are people who voted against Trump for that reason, but how many? You can't use it to support your claim unless you can show that there was a significant proportion of them.
I couldn't find a poll to indicate this. I looked. But are you not witnessing what people are talking about day to day? You don't need a weatherman to know which way the win blows. You don't need a poll to analyze every aspect of the current zeitgeist. Some things are simply all around you. Trump has some lovers. Trump has some vitriolic haters. I don't need a poll to be convinced of either of these facts. You mean tell me that you actually believe the number of people who voted for Hillary to oppose Trump is insignificant? You obviously haven't been paying attention. Hillary had plenty of detractors on BOTH sides of the aisle, she wasn't enamored by an all but insignificant portion of her voters. Many of those were votes to avoid Trump. It amazes me this is news to anyone.



Quote:
You may not have noticed but the country has become much more polarised in recent decades. You must've noticed on this very forum how right-wingers twist themselves into MarineLand water slides in order to defend or ignore the magnitude of his sins. I told you: it's tribalism. My side, right or wrong.
What makes you think it's only tribalism? You're attacking individual pieces of evidence without looking at the whole picture. Was tribalism why the establishment GOP candidates were rejected, too?

I also remember a thread on this board which discusses a social study that indicated: Populations are particularly susceptible to conman demagogues during periods of SAES. Anyone remember that? I couldn't find it, however. If anyone could post a link, I'd appreciate it.

Anyway: According to that study, the mere existence of one like Trump is indicative of SAES, not just tribalism.





Quote:
Anyway, so what? It's all covered in the argument I presented. Why do you think it's wrong? The very thing you mention here is evidence that I'm right -- that people more and more tend to ignore the sins of their own side.

The existence of tribalism does not demonstrate the non-existence of SAES. You're just using it to once again dismiss evidence. Like you do over and over and over again.



Quote:
And you say that I ignore evidence that proves me wrong. Very nice.

I made an amendment to my post with post 873. Note that the back and forth argument/counter argument ended with me countering your last point. I got no further response from this. This is what I am referring to.



Quote:
You're getting dangerously close to lying, here. I've already said that it WAS. What I DID say was that a vote for him was not NECESSARILY a vote against the establishment. Again, you need to read what I actually post, not add meaning between the lines.
Well, for example in the very post you were responding to here I specifically asked (like I had done many times previously) to simply SPECIFY what your position is:

Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
nd I agree, and once again I'm wondering what we're even debating. Just how strong that appeal was? Like, do we need to attach a number to it? Because whenever I point out "This indicates anti-establishment antics were part of his appeal" you inevitably bend over backwards to find reasons it does not. For someone who agrees AES are part of his appeal, you certainly go out of your way to deny evidence of that. Is it simply the "strong" you object to?

In that case, I think we simply have different perceptions on what "strong" is when applied to SAES or approval or whatever. For example, I think stable 40% approval is rather strong. You do not. In that case, I see no point in continuing this debate.

Whenever I've asked such a straightforward question about the actual topic of debate you're always coy (saying I've already told you) or simply ignore it entirely (like you did here).

Why the coyness? Why not just come out and say what your position is instead of dissembling about it?

I'm not lying, I'm just confused on what the actual topic of debate is anymore.

That's your fault, not mine.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 12:00 PM   #61
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,672
One final comment to further illustrate my confusion:

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
My personal opinion of the candidates at the time, and the fact that none of them, Trump included, got much in the way of voter excitement. Trump more than the others, mind you, because of his wrecking ball personality.

and

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post

Come on, Cabbage. That there are people who are excited by Trump enough to fill a hall doesn't mean that he energised the conservative voting bloc. He trounced the other candidates because they were weak and he was boisterious and new and fun. And he still got fewer votes in the general than Romney, who's, let's say it, less than exciting himself. We're not talking Reagan levels of popularity here.



I've already mentioned how these go hand in hand with SAES, and I pointed that out. You responded by saying yes, you agree, it's just that the SAES involved wasn't that strong.

Now I'm wondering: If it wasn't that strong, then how did it become noteworthy enough to be included in your list of preferred qualities for the voters in the first place. The very fact you bothered to mention it implies it was strong.

Now, that is my presentation of your position as I understand it. I am not lying about it. I am inviting you to correct any misrepresentation or explain where you think I am wrong, whichever is appropriate.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 01:15 PM   #62
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,393
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
And yet the poll showing 70% have SAES counts for nothing. Go figure.
No need to go figure. I explained my reasoning to you. You keep pretending that explanations I've given have not been given, that replies I've made were not made. Why do you do this?

Quote:
The question is most definitely not how much support they have.. It's whether or not they are weak.
Which is in good part about their support! It's crucial to the question!

Quote:
They are weak because they didn't have much support. They don't have much support because they are weak. This is your argument.
No, it isn't. Don't tell me what my argument is; you have a poor track record of that. Besides, electability has a sort of feedback loop to it, as I'm sure you're aware.

Quote:
What makes you think it's only tribalism?
I never said it was.

Quote:
The existence of tribalism does not demonstrate the non-existence of SAES.
I never said it did.

Quote:
That's your fault, not mine.
For pete's sake, Cabbage, we're not in grade school. If I said something once and you didn't understand it, it might be my "fault", but after several explanations using different words, it's hard to shake the impression that you share part of the blame.

Quote:
One final comment to further illustrate my confusion:
Those two things are not mutually exclusive, so I don't see what the confusion is.

I came to this thread right now to reset the conversation and start back at the fundamental, but honestly I don't know if it's worth it. Tell me if you're interested.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 01:21 PM   #63
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,044
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No need to go figure. I explained my reasoning to you.
You rejected that data because it conflicts with the fact that Clinton won the popular vote, yes?
Or am I misunderstanding you?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 02:22 PM   #64
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No need to go figure. I explained my reasoning to you. You keep pretending that explanations I've given have not been given, that replies I've made were not made. Why do you do this?
Because what I did was point out how your objection is actually CONSISTENT with my claim. It doesn't refute my claim so you need to try again if refuting my claim is what you're trying to do.



Quote:
Which is in good part about their support! It's crucial to the question!
No, it's not. They could have poor support for being weak. On the other hand, they could have poor support because of SAES. You simply gave another possible reason. You didn't demonstrate SAES was not a factor.



Quote:
No, it isn't. Don't tell me what my argument is; you have a poor track record of that. Besides, electability has a sort of feedback loop to it, as I'm sure you're aware.
I'm telling you your arguments don't actually refute my claim like you think they do.



Quote:
I never said it was.
So, it's consistent with SAES being a factor as well. It doesn't refute my claim: SAES is a factor. Sure, tribalism exists. So does SAES.



Quote:
I never said it did.
Then what is your position? Just how MUCH of a factor? Is that what you're contesting I'm honestly not sure. I've asked that before. You still don't answer. That's why I say it's the onus is on you: Why don't you just clearly answer that damn question? That's my response to:



Quote:
For pete's sake, Cabbage, we're not in grade school. If I said something once and you didn't understand it, it might be my "fault", but after several explanations using different words, it's hard to shake the impression that you share part of the blame.


Quote:
Those two things are not mutually exclusive, so I don't see what the confusion is.
I'm not even sure what two things you're talking about. In that post I was merely pointing out that you are using "boisterous" and "wrecking-ball" as two of a handful adjectives describing Trump's success. Those are pretty close to synonymous with SAES, and the fact you bring them up implies to me you do realize that SAES was an important factor. And then you deny and say it wasn't that much of a factor. That's my interpretation of your position.


Quote:
I came to this thread right now to reset the conversation and start back at the fundamental, but honestly I don't know if it's worth it. Tell me if you're interested.
Sure. I've asked you repeatedly to simply tell me specifically what your position is: Does Saes exist? Was it a significant factor in 2016? Do you claim there's too many other variables to be sure? Something completely different. I'm not saying you've never been clear on this, but I honestly don't recall ever seeing it.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 05:45 PM   #65
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,672
Oh and one more thing regarding this comment:

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post

For pete's sake, Cabbage, we're not in grade school. If I said something once and you didn't understand it, it might be my "fault", but after several explanations using different words, it's hard to shake the impression that you share part of the blame.



Here you say you have no position:

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yeah, because I have no position on the issue; I was asking a question, and then disagreeing with one claim because of the data and methodology.


...while here you say the debate is specifically on whether or not SAES is strong. First, I posted

Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Let me clarify: Are we actually debating whether or not anti-establishment system is strong, or are you focused on some epistemological aspect of whether we can conclude that or not, or some corollary to that? If it's the former, I'm game; either of the latter, I'm not particularly interested.




...to which you responded:

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
The former. I don't even know what the latter would entail, and that sounds like a boring thing to debate.


But if you're just playing devil's advocate and merely arguing that the evidence as presented is not strong enough to justify belief in strong SAES (without taking a position yourself, though at the same time even you've admitted that AES is a factor), then you're actually debating the epistemological path that I specifically asked about. The one which you explicitly denied you were debating.

It ain't my fault I'm confused about what you are trying to say, bro.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2019, 01:23 PM   #66
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,933
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Nothing to be learned from 2018?
Trump is every bit as doomed in 2020 after the 2018 mid-terms as Obama was doomed in 2012 after the 2010 midterms.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2019, 01:49 PM   #67
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,021
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Trump is every bit as doomed in 2020 after the 2018 mid-terms as Obama was doomed in 2012 after the 2010 midterms.
Well, I'm okay with Republicans thinking that's a valid comparison.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 06:38 PM   #68
Tero
Graduate Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 1,617
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Right now pretty much all political commentary is in a state of quantum flux until we learn if 2016 was a fluke or a harbinger of things to come.
It's quite troublesome to know that a good portion ofcthe US public has such a hatred of the federal government. Personally I don't care for parts of it, such as the electoral college. But the Trump and Trump followers' way os scrapping nearly everything will lead to instability.
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 06:56 PM   #69
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,455
Originally Posted by Tero View Post
It's quite troublesome to know that a good portion ofcthe US public has such a hatred of the federal government. Personally I don't care for parts of it, such as the electoral college. But the Trump and Trump followers' way os scrapping nearly everything will lead to instability.
They're overtly sabotaging the government in ways that, in more normal times and under less restrictive definitions than the US', would likely qualify as treasonous. If they want to get rid of parts of the government, there's right ways and wrong ways to do it. Legislating non-essential parts away is one thing. Sabotaging them, purging them of those not in their party, and so on are wrong ways that honestly deserve real resistance and consequences. Heck, I've actually had Republican friends of mine agree with me on that point, even when they hold a dim view of the government.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 8th September 2019 at 07:01 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 07:05 PM   #70
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,700
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
They're overtly sabotaging the government in ways that, in more normal times and under less restrictive definitions than the US', would likely qualify as treasonous. If they want to get rid of parts of the government, there's right ways and wrong ways to do it. Legislating non-essential parts away is one thing. Sabotaging them, purging them of those not in their party, and so on are wrong ways that honestly deserve real resistance and consequences. Heck, I've actually had Republican friends of mine agree with me on that point, even when they hold a dim view of the government.
The thing is that it is trivially true to say that if you change the definition of treason to X then doing X is treason.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 07:23 PM   #71
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
The thing is that it is trivially true to say that if you change the definition of treason to X then doing X is treason.
That's not the same thing at all. Sure, if I define "treason" to include wearing white after Labor Day or some other such nonsense, then it is treason. That's not the point here.


Under the common understanding of the word "treason" Trump's actions are treasonous ("the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery." Check out a dictionary sometime: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/treason ). Quit trying to make excuses for Trump.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 07:39 PM   #72
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,700
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
That's not the same thing at all. Sure, if I define "treason" to include wearing white after Labor Day or some other such nonsense, then it is treason. That's not the point here.


Under the common understanding of the word "treason" Trump's actions are treasonous ("the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery." Check out a dictionary sometime: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/treason ). Quit trying to make excuses for Trump.
Oh, you certainly have me pegged. You know me, always trying to make excuses for Donald Trump! I am sure you have a list of all the times I have done that, right?

Anyway, that is a ridiculously wide open definition of "treason". If you are going to start prosecuting people for treason because of a "betrayal or a trust or confidence, a breach of faith or treachery" then you are going to have to prosecute pretty much any politician or at the very least, all politicians could be accused of such.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 08:10 PM   #73
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Oh, you certainly have me pegged. You know me, always trying to make excuses for Donald Trump! I am sure you have a list of all the times I have done that, right?
I've got one example right here, so let me amend my last comment from, "Quit trying to make excuses for Trump" to "Quit making an excuse for Trump".

Quote:
Anyway, that is a ridiculously wide open definition of "treason". If you are going to start prosecuting people for treason because of a "betrayal or a trust or confidence, a breach of faith or treachery" then you are going to have to prosecute pretty much any politician or at the very least, all politicians could be accused of such.

It's not my definition, it's the dictionary's. Take it up with the English language. Perhaps you're more satisfied with this at the bottom of the linked page:

Synonym study
1. Treason , sedition mean disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government. Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government.



You know, this isn't like changing the definition of "Hot" to "Cold", and I'm astounded you would even treat it as similar.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 08:24 PM   #74
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,700
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I've got one example right here, so let me amend my last comment from, "Quit trying to make excuses for Trump" to "Quit making an excuse for Trump".




It's not my definition, it's the dictionary's. Take it up with the English language. Perhaps you're more satisfied with this at the bottom of the linked page:

Synonym study
1. Treason , sedition mean disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government. Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government.



You know, this isn't like changing the definition of "Hot" to "Cold", and I'm astounded you would even treat it as similar.
The English language, as is the case with all languages, is defined according to the ways in which people use the words, and one of the ways people use the words is by hyperbole, or exaggeration for effect. For example, I could say, "I literally laughed my ass off at Joe Biden's latest gaffe!" and that is perfectly in line with how it is used, and most dictionaries agree with this.

Now, you are saying that "impairing the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance" should be prosecutable as treason, but that is too open-ended. Let's say that Warren's or Sanders' climate change policies were deemed to be "bad" for the economy (and thus the "well-being of the state"), if elected would they be guilty of treason? Let's say Andrew Yang's ideas or those of other Democrats' were likely to increase the deficit, would they be guilty of treason?

I think you miss the point in having a tight and restricted definition. Opening it too widely leaves it open to abuse.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 08:26 PM   #75
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,586
Since the original mention of it was in the context of "overtly sabotaging the government" I think we've cleared like 90% of the hurdle on this one.

Yes, the "in ways" part is what's under dispute, but given where things stand at that point, the definition is not really being toyed with. I can accept at face value the notion that at other points in this or other nations' histories, acting in such a manner (effective shuttering of agencies, interference with legislatively appropriated funds) while also under a cloud of suspicion about nefarious foreign interference would result in removal from office at the very least.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 08:38 PM   #76
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post

Now, you are saying that "impairing the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance" should be prosecutable as treason, but that is too open-ended. Let's say that Warren's or Sanders' climate change policies were deemed to be "bad" for the economy (and thus the "well-being of the state"), if elected would they be guilty of treason? Let's say Andrew Yang's ideas or those of other Democrats' were likely to increase the deficit, would they be guilty of treason?

I would think it's understood that intent (as in "intentionally impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance") is implicit.

Your examples lack intent.

Question: Do you really think it's that much of a stretch to call Trump's actions treasonous in the general (not US Constitutional) sense? I'm not accusing you of being a Trump supporter or even an apologist, I just think you're coming off as being needlessly pedantic on the meaning of the word "treason". Again, it's not like we're changing the definition of "Summer" to "Winter" here, we're well within the spirit of the meaning of "Treason". Can you seriously not see that distinction?
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 08:47 PM   #77
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,700
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I would think it's understood that intent (as in "intentionally impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance") is implicit.

Your examples lack intent.

Question: Do you really think it's that much of a stretch to call Trump's actions treasonous in the general (not US Constitutional) sense? I'm not accusing you of being a Trump supporter or even an apologist, I just think you're coming off as being needlessly pedantic on the meaning of the word "treason". Again, it's not like we're changing the definition of "Summer" to "Winter" here, we're well within the spirit of the meaning of "Treason". Can you seriously not see that distinction?
No. I consider it to be overheated rhetoric. I am from the UK, and I see people on both sides of the Brexit issue shrieking the word at each other on a regular basis. Everyone - PMs, MPs, the speaker, judges, half the population of the UK, the young, the elderly, etc... are being accused of "treason" by the other side.

I think it is much saner to stick to restrict criticism to what is impeachable, and leave treason for the specific definition as laid out in the US constitution.

Do you know any democratic candidates (the subject of this thread, by the way) who are accusing Trump of treason? If so, then maybe their claims can be assessed. Let's try to keep it relevant.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 08:54 PM   #78
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
No. I consider it to be overheated rhetoric. I am from the UK, and I see people on both sides of the Brexit issue shrieking the word at each other on a regular basis. Everyone - PMs, MPs, the speaker, judges, half the population of the UK, the young, the elderly, etc... are being accused of "treason" by the other side.

You know, false accusations of treason in the UK in no way constitute evidence that accusations of treason against Trump are overheated.

But thanks for the deflection. They always amuse me.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2019, 09:25 PM   #79
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
No. I consider it to be overheated rhetoric. I am from the UK, and I see people on both sides of the Brexit issue shrieking the word at each other on a regular basis. Everyone - PMs, MPs, the speaker, judges, half the population of the UK, the young, the elderly, etc... are being accused of "treason" by the other side.

I think it is much saner to stick to restrict criticism to what is impeachable1, and leave treason for the specific definition as laid out in the US constitution2.

Do you know any democratic candidates (the subject of this thread, by the way) who are accusing Trump of treason? If so, then maybe their claims can be assessed. Let's try to keep it relevant.
1.) What offenses are considered impeachable in the Constitution?

2.) What offenses are considered treason in the Constitution?

Plus of course, as we've learned about the current legal theory in our country:

what procedure is appropriate for charging the President with treason?

Why, impeachment, of course.

I do agree on your point about this tangent Trump-ing the thread.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 8th September 2019 at 09:29 PM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 02:51 AM   #80
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,393
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
You rejected that data because it conflicts with the fact that Clinton won the popular vote, yes?
I rejected the poll bacause a much more reliable set of data contradicts it.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:03 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.