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 9th September 2019, 02:55 AM   #81
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Sure.
So let's reset, then:

Hello, I'm Belz...

It's been suggested that the election of Trump in 2016 somehow supports the idea that there's a strong current of anti-establishment sentiment in the US. However, I contend that people voted for Trump for a host of reasons. Since you seem to agree with the poster who brought all this up, perhaps you can support the idea that a vote for Trump is, overwhelmingly, an anti-establishment vote? It's the fundamental basis of the argument and I'd like to address it first.
__________________
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 9th September 2019, 03:37 AM   #82
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,428
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, however, is not what was said, as you likely should well know. The US' Constitution based version is restricted quite dramatically from the normal definition and usage of the word. THAT is a change to the normal definition, for that matter. I wasn't changing the definition, I was simply preemptively acknowledging the US' altered version to try to prevent a nigh inevitable derail into that well trod ground.

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Opening it too widely leaves it open to abuse.
Sure! I wasn't even close to the kind of concerns you expressed there, though. Perhaps you should have been a little more selective about your usage of your argument, lest you render it effectively worthless because of how far you had to stretch it?

Anyways, enough of that.

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
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.
Here's a few that are interested in impeachment. "Treason" is largely off the table because of the extreme restrictions of the altered US version. Beto, Booker, Castro, Harris, and Warren are some of the bigger names on the record as being in favor of starting an impeachment inquiry.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
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 9th September 2019, 03:58 AM   #83
Cabbage
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,609
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
So let's reset, then:

Hello, I'm Belz...

It's been suggested that the election of Trump in 2016 somehow supports the idea that there's a strong current of anti-establishment sentiment in the US. However, I contend that people voted for Trump for a host of reasons. Since you seem to agree with the poster who brought all this up, perhaps you can support the idea that a vote for Trump is, overwhelmingly, an anti-establishment vote? It's the fundamental basis of the argument and I'd like to address it first.

Nice to meet ya, Belz..., I'm Cabbage.

First, I'd like to point out your use of the word "overwhelmingly" is entirely your invention. I've never used that word. Maybe kellyb did, but I didn't. I've simply said there is a strong anti-establishment sentiment in America today. The closest I can find for reasons people voted for Trump is this:



I consider 27% to be rather substantial. Don't you? And it is incorrect to assume that it is limited to 27% (see below).

My main point of complaint with your argument is this:

1. kellyb posted a poll showing 70% SAES.

2. You then claimed that is contradicted by the fact that Clinton received more votes than Trump in 2016.

3. I have said repeatedly that Point Two does NOT contradict Point One: The election of 2016 didn't happen in a vacuum. I guarantee you that a significant number of people had thoughts along the lines, "I'd really like to finally vote for an outsider/anti-establishment candidate this time but Trump is just way too much of a nutjob. It's gonna have to be Clinton for me this go around. Note that 32% of voters voted Clinton because "She is not Trump". I guarantee a significant number of those have SAES but were turned off by Trump's insanity and corruption, so the 27% is actually deceptively low.

Now, can I prove that a significant number of American voters thought that? No, I can't. I've looked around and simply haven't found a poll that addresses that specifically. However, it's clear that it most definitely is at least a reasonable possibility. The fact that it's at least a reasonable possibility means that Point Two does not in fact contradict Point One: Considering the fact that other variables are present, they are actually consistent with each other.

Summarizing, I consider a poll showing 70% SAES to be rather strong evidence. Strong enough to require strong evidence against it to falsify it. You simply haven't found that evidence yet.
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 9th September 2019, 04:05 AM   #84
Cabbage
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,609
I forgot to include one important point: Clinton received more votes in 2016, but the fact that Trump was even a contender itself is evidence of SAES. Indeed, he was not merely a contender; he won the electoral college. I strongly doubt that would ever have been possible without SAES.

Taken as a whole, the totality of the 2016 election (not just Clinton receiving more votes) is evidence supporting the 70% SAES poll, not contradicting it. You merely cherry picked a detail without looking at the whole picture.
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 9th September 2019, 05:04 AM   #85
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,361
I swear to God you could shoot half the people on this board and they'd bleed out, refusing medical treatment until we clarified whether it's a bullet "hole" or a bullet "tunnel."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   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, 05:33 AM   #86
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,208
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I swear to God you could shoot half the people on this board and they'd bleed out, refusing medical treatment until we clarified whether it's a bullet "hole" or a bullet "tunnel."
Technically they're actually stab wounds.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   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, 05:53 AM   #87
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Nice to meet ya, Belz..., I'm Cabbage.

First, I'd like to point out your use of the word "overwhelmingly" is entirely your invention. I've never used that word.
I'm sorry, you must be mistaken. We've never met before. We're starting over, remember?

Quote:
The closest I can find for reasons people voted for Trump is this:

(snip graph)

I consider 27% to be rather substantial. Don't you?
A significant minority, perhaps, but the claim I'm looking at is that one can look at Trump votes as a vote against the Establishment. I don't think 27% if anywhere near enough to support that idea. It'd have to be well over 50.

Quote:
kellyb posted a poll showing 70% SAES.
Yes well my response to that is that, fine, there's a poll that shows that people say that, when they're asked they they think When it's time to put their money where their mouths are and actually vote, however, more of them voted for the establishment candidate than for the ?anti-establishment one. How do you square that with that 70%

Quote:
I guarantee you that a significant number of people had thoughts along the lines, "I'd really like to finally vote for an outsider/anti-establishment candidate this time but Trump is just way too much of a nutjob. It's gonna have to be Clinton for me this go around. Note that 32% of voters voted Clinton because "She is not Trump". I guarantee a significant number of those have SAES but were turned off by Trump's insanity and corruption, so the 27% is actually deceptively low.
I'm not sure your guarantee makes your opinion evidence. That is, I'm sure you're right that some did that -- as you say it's a reasonable possibility -- but without hard numbers it's just speculation that it had any sort of substantial influence on the results.

Quote:
Summarizing, I consider a poll showing 70% SAES to be rather strong evidence.
And I don't consider polls to be much evidence of anything, especially when it comes the time to actually act on those purported beliefs. Clinton also got more votes than Sanders in the primaries, for example.
__________________
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 9th September 2019, 09:16 AM   #88
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,092
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I guarantee you that a significant number of people had thoughts along the lines, "I'd really like to finally vote for an outsider/anti-establishment candidate this time but Trump is just way too much of a nutjob. It's gonna have to be Clinton for me this go around. Note that 32% of voters voted Clinton because "She is not Trump".
Also, among Trump voters, some of the choices in that poll can be looked at as rephrasings of the same concept(s), and even voters who interpret those phrases as distinct things could still see more than one of the choices as valid reasons to vote that way, so the Tump voters who would pick one of the other options in such a poll are bound to include people who do also have the anti-establishment sentiment.
Delvo 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, 09:35 AM   #89
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,850
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I rejected the poll bacause a much more reliable set of data contradicts it.
The set of data being "the fact that Clinton won the popular vote", or______???
__________________
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 9th September 2019, 10:04 AM   #90
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,850
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
When it's time to put their money where their mouths are and actually vote, however, more of them voted for the establishment candidate than for the ?anti-establishment one. How do you square that with that 70%
One possible reason is because "Not Trump/not a Republican" was a greater priority among virtually all Clinton voters than the "is anti-establishment" aspect many of them might have otherwise valued.


We know that roughly 43.1% of the Clinton voters (Democrats) preferred anti-establishment Sanders over Clinton.

Clinton got 48.2% of the popular vote against Trump, and thus roughly 43% of her 48% total votes would have preferred the anti-establishment democratic candidate.

So, on the democratic side: the establishment candidate got 55.2%, and the anti-establishment got 43%.

On the Republican side, would you agree that Trump + Cruz = "anti-establishment" votes in their primary?

What % of Republican primary votes went to their establishment faction?
__________________
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.

Last edited by kellyb; 9th September 2019 at 10:23 AM.
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 9th September 2019, 10:19 AM   #91
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,092
And that's just one general election and the two primaries that led to it. It completely leaves out the fact that over a thousand federal & state seats had shifted in the previous 8 years toward the party that routinely successfully uses anti-establlishment PR, whose voters routinely talk about their anti-establishmentness in casual conversations and share an anti-establishment image of what the country is about and how it was founded, and that didn't have the White House or either federal legislative house (maybe not even the Supreme Court?) at the start of that period. And even if we were to say that only Presidential campaigns count, it ignores the "we're going to change everything!" nature of previous recent winning campaigns.

The proof of a widespread anti-establishment sentiment in this country is so thoroughly ubiquitous that pretending it's not there, or even is in any actual doubt, is patently absurd. It's like denying the existence of trees while standing in the middle of a forest.

Last edited by Delvo; 9th September 2019 at 10:21 AM.
Delvo 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, 11:06 AM   #92
Cabbage
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,609
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Also, among Trump voters, some of the choices in that poll can be looked at as rephrasings of the same concept(s), and even voters who interpret those phrases as distinct things could still see more than one of the choices as valid reasons to vote that way, so the Tump voters who would pick one of the other options in such a poll are bound to include people who do also have the anti-establishment sentiment.

I considered that myself, but notice that some people gave multiple responses. Of Trump voters, 33% said "He is not Clinton", while 27% said "Political Outsider", but we don't know how large the intersection is so we can't determine the total. I think it's almost certainly more than 27% and less than 60%, but it's impossible to pinpoint it further without more information.
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 9th September 2019, 11:11 AM   #93
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,850
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I considered that myself, but notice that some people gave multiple responses. Of Trump voters, 33% said "He is not Clinton", while 27% said "Political Outsider", but we don't know how large the intersection is so we can't determine the total. I think it's almost certainly more than 27% and less than 60%, but it's impossible to pinpoint it further without more information.
The question being phrased "What is the MAIN reason" kind of screws up the data 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 9th September 2019, 11:36 AM   #94
Cabbage
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,609
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I'm sorry, you must be mistaken. We've never met before. We're starting over, remember?
Oh, in that case, you shouldn't be telling me what my position is, now should you? I had to correct you because you got it wrong. In fact, I wasn't completely clear: I've never said the Trump vote was overwhelmingly anti-establishment. I've never claimed the majority of Trump votes were A-E, either. My claim is simply that, at this point in time, A-E is strong (note that the claim doesn't even refer to Trump). The Trump election is evidence of this; I don't think he would have won without A-E. Note that that does not require a majority of votes to be A-E: This election was close enough (~80,000 votes made the difference in the EC) that the small margins matter. Very very much. That 27% that you dismiss is quite easily enough to turn the election through those 80,000 votes. No, I don't have evidence to prove that. Still, you dismiss evidence routinely (like the 70% A-E poll), so why bother?



Quote:
A significant minority, perhaps, but the claim I'm looking at is that one can look at Trump votes as a vote against the Establishment. I don't think 27% if anywhere near enough to support that idea. It'd have to be well over 50.
I just addressed that. 27% is quite enough to sway an election that close.



Quote:
Yes well my response to that is that, fine, there's a poll that shows that people say that, when they're asked they they think When it's time to put their money where their mouths are and actually vote, however, more of them voted for the establishment candidate than for the ?anti-establishment one. How do you square that with that 70%.
Jesus Christ, are you even bothering to read my posts? I've squared that probably half a dozen times, at least. I squared in the very post you just responded to. Here, the bold, italicized part:

Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post

1. kellyb posted a poll showing 70% SAES.

2. You then claimed that is contradicted by the fact that Clinton received more votes than Trump in 2016.

3. I have said repeatedly that Point Two does NOT contradict Point One: The election of 2016 didn't happen in a vacuum (ie, there were multiple factors in play, not simply AE vs E). I guarantee you that a significant number of people had thoughts along the lines, "I'd really like to finally vote for an outsider/anti-establishment candidate this time but Trump is just way too much of a nutjob. It's gonna have to be Clinton for me this go around". Note that 32% of voters voted Clinton because "She is not Trump". I guarantee a significant number of those have SAES but were turned off by Trump's insanity and corruption, so the 27% is actually deceptively low.
That means Clinton receiving more votes does NOT imply that anti-establishment sentiments are not strong. Under my scenario, it can quite easily be the case that A) A-E sentiments are strong, and B) Clinton got more votes. This is because people decide their votes on many, many factors, not just E vs A-E.

You have never contradicted my claim!







Quote:
I'm not sure your guarantee makes your opinion evidence. That is, I'm sure you're right that some did that -- as you say it's a reasonable possibility -- but without hard numbers it's just speculation that it had any sort of substantial influence on the results.
I'm not using my opinion as evidence. I'm using it to demonstrate the flaw in your reasoning.

Let's run through the argument. I claim A. You claim B contradicts A (ie B implies Not A, or just B -> ~A).

Now, this is an important part: For B -> ~A to be logically true (ie you actually have a real, bona fide contradiction there) it must be the case that in every scenario B implies not A. I provided a scenario where A and B are actually consistent (A and B both true). It was a reasonable scenario, well within the bounds of possibility. I don't have to prove my scenario is true; it's mere existence as a possibility demonstrates that B -> ~A is not universally true. Here is a scenario where A and B are quite consistent with each other.

Therefore, what you thought was a contradiction was not a contradiction at all. You failed to consider all scenarios. In some of those scenarios you are wrong, therefore it can't be considered a logical contradiction.

I've now posted that at least six times and you have not even once addressed it. Indeed, you still pretend as though you contradicted my original claim (strong SAES). You have not.



Quote:
And I don't consider polls to be much evidence of anything, especially when it comes the time to actually act on those purported beliefs. Clinton also got more votes than Sanders in the primaries, for example.
No offense, but you are a moron IF you think that reality will be perfectly reflected in every single vote. Having Strong AE never implied that every. single. election. would. go. to. the. antiestablishment. candidate. Do you not understand this? There are trends and there are multiple other factors that affect a person's vote. That's what I mean by repeatedly saying "It didn't happen in a vacuum". It's naive in the extreme to believe that every A-E voter will vote Trump, every E voter will vote Clinton. It's never anywhere near that simple.

You perpetually ignore the evidence of A-E, like the Congressional waves of 2010 and 2018. Like Trump winning the GOP primary. Like Trump actually competing with Clinton in a national election. Hell, not just competing but.....winning. Every one of those results is a reflection of SAES. Sure, you can cherry pick establishment candidates winning, too, but that doesn't render any of this evidence irrelevant.
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 9th September 2019, 11:38 AM   #95
Cabbage
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,609
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
The question being phrased "What is the MAIN reason" kind of screws up the data there.

I'm not sure if you're trying to contradict my post or just saying the poll has limited use or what, but I did want to point out that while it asks for the MAIN reason some people did in fact give multiple responses: "Total exceeds 100% because of multiple responses".
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 9th September 2019, 11:52 AM   #96
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,850
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I'm not sure if you're trying to contradict my post or just saying the poll has limited use or what, but I did want to point out that while it asks for the MAIN reason some people did in fact give multiple responses: "Total exceeds 100% because of multiple responses".
I was agreeing with you, and noting that the fact that it was phrased as looking for the sole, "main" reason is why we can't tell how much overlap there really is.
__________________
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.

Last edited by kellyb; 9th September 2019 at 12:05 PM.
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 9th September 2019, 12:03 PM   #97
Cabbage
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,609
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I was agreeing with you, and noting that he fact that it was phrased as looking for the sole, "main" reason is why we can't tell how much overlap there really is.
Ah, gotcha!
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 9th September 2019, 12:29 PM   #98
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,270
Trump was objectively not an anti-establishment candidate.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite 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, 12:37 PM   #99
Cabbage
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,609
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Trump was objectively not an anti-establishment candidate.

Makes no difference when it comes to voting. Voting is based on perception not objectivity.
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 9th September 2019, 12:41 PM   #100
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,850
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Trump was objectively not an anti-establishment candidate.
What do you mean?
__________________
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 9th September 2019, 01:05 PM   #101
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,361
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Trump was objectively not an anti-establishment candidate.
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
What do you mean?
He's a troll. He was elected to break the establishment, not because he was or was not particularly a part of it.

You're laser focused only on the "They want an outside the establishment candidate" version of anti-establishment.

They elected the candidate that would do the most damage to the establishment, not the one who was the most anti-establishment.

And he's succeeding far beyond our wildest dreams.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   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, 01:07 PM   #102
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,850
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
He's a troll. He was elected to break the establishment, not because he was or was not particularly a part of it.

You're laser focused only on the "They want an outside the establishment candidate" version of anti-establishment.

They elected the candidate that would do the most damage to the establishment, not the one who was the most anti-establishment.

And he's succeeding far beyond our wildest dreams.
An aspiring establishment-breaking troll is anti-establishment by definition.

But okay.
__________________
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 9th September 2019, 01:58 PM   #103
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,548
Trump is not in the "establishment" wealth circle.

Establishment wealth doesn't have to call publishers while pretending to be someone else to convince them they have even more money.

Establishment wealth calls their Senator and reminisces about their last fundraiser before casually mentioning a problem they are having with regulatory agency preventing them from making even more money.
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 PM   #104
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,542
Trump want to be part of the business establishment, but he pretty much blackballed for one reason" He is not a good businessman.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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, 05:17 PM   #105
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,270
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
He's a troll. He was elected to break the establishment, not because he was or was not particularly a part of it.

You're laser focused only on the "They want an outside the establishment candidate" version of anti-establishment.

They elected the candidate that would do the most damage to the establishment, not the one who was the most anti-establishment.

And he's succeeding far beyond our wildest dreams.
Everything about this post is incorrect, it's actually impressive.

Trump has done no damage whatsoever to the establishment; in fact his tax-cutting, sharp deregulation, and gutting of oversight and consumer advocacy agencies has strengthened the establishment to levels they've never enjoyed until now.

Trump campaigned, falsely, as both outside-the-establishment and anti-establishment. Both were lies - again, objectively speaking; subjectively, he was using "establishment" as a dogwhistle for "Democrats" and his supporters were conscious of that - which is why they remain loyal in the face of his decisively pro-establishment presidency so far.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite 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, 05:42 PM   #106
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,850
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Everything about this post is incorrect, it's actually impressive.

Trump has done no damage whatsoever to the establishment; in fact his tax-cutting, sharp deregulation, and gutting of oversight and consumer advocacy agencies has strengthened the establishment to levels they've never enjoyed until now.

Trump campaigned, falsely, as both outside-the-establishment and anti-establishment. Both were lies - again, objectively speaking; subjectively, he was using "establishment" as a dogwhistle for "Democrats" and his supporters were conscious of that - which is why they remain loyal in the face of his decisively pro-establishment presidency so far.
Oh! I agree that President Trump has proven to be very Quintessential Establishment (on everything besides trade, and to a lesser extent foreign policy, at least), but Candidate Trump (the act/lie) was anti-establishment.

I don't think Trump was merely using "establishment" as a filler for Democrat, though. His base really doesn't like Bush, etc so much any more. Hate radio started dissing the Republican establishment years ago. I remember Rush Limbaugh screaming about how "Newt Gingrich is a progressive!" around 2008. When the hate-radio listening base get bored with the same old talking points about democrats, they spice things up by accusing rightwingers of being closet leftwingers.
__________________
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 10th September 2019, 04:21 AM   #107
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
The set of data being "the fact that Clinton won the popular vote", or______???
Interesting way to word it. She had more votes.

Quote:
One possible reason is because "Not Trump/not a Republican" was a greater priority among virtually all Clinton voters than the "is anti-establishment" aspect many of them might have otherwise valued.
Possible. And? You mention Sanders but do we know why people wanted to vote Sanders? This is the same question I have with Trump. Just voting for either of them doesn't mean that the main reason, or indeed any reason, is to shake up the system.
__________________
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 10th September 2019, 04:44 AM   #108
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Oh, in that case, you shouldn't be telling me what my position is, now should you?
I wasn't talking about your position.

Do you understand the concept of a RESET? It's meant to get rid of baggage and get back to the fundamentals, treating the past exchanges as non-existent. I asked you if you agreed to one and you did, but now for some reason you forgot all that and are treating it as a continuation. Why?

Quote:
27% is quite enough to sway an election that close.
Whether it can sway elections or not is not under discussion, so that has no bearing on my argument.

Quote:
That means Clinton receiving more votes does NOT imply that anti-establishment sentiments are not strong.
I never said it did. Your entire argument rests upon this one mistake.

Your responses seem to indicate that you believe that anti-establishment sentiments can have no bearing on anything except polls. Now, clearly you don't think that, but you're arguing as if you did. MY point is that if it were really that high (70%) it should be reflected in a number of ways. I've given examples where this isn't the case. Kelly and yourself have given examples where it could be, but I'm challenging your assumptions about these cases.

Specifically, I am challenging the idea that votes for Trump were overwhelmingly motivated by those sentiments. So far no one has responded to that.

Quote:
You perpetually ignore the evidence of A-E
Disagreeing over the evidence is not ignoring the evidence. Stop repeating this falsehood.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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



Last edited by Belz...; 10th September 2019 at 05:20 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 10th September 2019, 04:46 AM   #109
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Everything about this post is incorrect, it's actually impressive.
Aw, you missed an opportunity to use 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 10th September 2019, 05:27 AM   #110
Cabbage
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,609
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I wasn't talking about your position.

Do you understand the concept of a RESET? It's meant to get rid of baggage and get back to the fundamentals, treating the past exchanges as non-existent. I asked you if you agreed to one and you did, but now for some reason you forgot all that and are treating it as a continuation. Why?
Because you, yourself fudged it up in your very first reset post:

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
So let's reset, then:

Hello, I'm Belz...

It's been suggested that the election of Trump in 2016 somehow supports the idea that there's a strong current of anti-establishment sentiment in the US. However, I contend that people voted for Trump for a host of reasons. Since you seem to agree with the poster who brought all this up, perhaps you can support the idea that a vote for Trump is, overwhelmingly, an anti-establishment vote? It's the fundamental basis of the argument and I'd like to address it first.
You're asking me, off the bat to support an idea that I never even presented previously. Much less at the beginning of the reset.

Quote:
Whether it can sway elections or not is not under discussion, so that has no bearing on my argument.
It absolutely is under discussion because it is one of the primary sources of evidence for whether or not A-E is strong. It's under discussion because it's relevant. That should be so obvious you should be embarrassed that I have to point it out to you.



Quote:
I never said it did. Your entire argument rests upon this one mistake.
You never said it did? OK then, you've never provided any evidence whatsoever that A-E is not strong (not even false "evidence" that you ignorantly believed to be evidence). Why then do you keep wasting my time with mere dissembling, providing no evidence?

Quote:
Your responses seem to indicate that you believe that anti-establishment sentiments can have no bearing on anything except polls. Now, clearly you don't think that, but you're arguing as if you did. MY point is that if it were really that high (70%) it should be reflected in a number of ways. I've given examples where this isn't the case. Kelly and yourself have given examples where it could be, but I'm challenging your assumptions about these cases.
If you truly think this then you haven't even bothered to read my posts. Read the very post you are responding too!:

Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post

You perpetually ignore the evidence of A-E, like the Congressional waves of 2010 and 2018. Like Trump winning the GOP primary. Like Trump actually competing with Clinton in a national election. Hell, not just competing but.....winning. Every one of those results is a reflection of SAES. Sure, you can cherry pick establishment candidates winning, too, but that doesn't render any of this evidence irrelevant.
Again, why are you wasting my time with this nonsense. Respond to my posts, please, not your imaginary straw man.

I'll also borrow this (corrected) line from that post you're responding to:

Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
No offense, but you are a moron IF you think that the reality of one single factor will be perfectly reflected in every single vote. It (strong A-E) is reflected in a number of ways, just not universally, which is evidently the only evidence you'll allow--An impossible and absolutely worthless standard.

Quote:
Specifically, I am challenging the idea that votes for Trump were overwhelmingly motivated by those sentiments. So far no one has responded to that.
I specifically told you that is not my position. I am supporting my position, not the one you invented for me (that's rather rude of you, I might add). My position: Simply that A-E sentiments are strong at this point in time.



Quote:
Disagreeing over the evidence is not ignoring the evidence. Stop repeating this falsehood.
You dismiss the evidence of the 70% poll. You dismiss the evidence of Trump winning the GOP nomination. You dismiss the evidence of Sanders competing far more effectively against Clinton than initially expected. You dismiss the evidence of Trump winning the electoral college. You dismiss the evidence of the Tea Party wave of 2010. You dismiss the evidence of the Blue wave of 2018. Furthermore, you provide absolutely no evidence that A-E sentiments are not strong

Yeah, I'm gonna keep repeating the quite obvious: You're ignoring the evidence.
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 10th September 2019, 05:51 AM   #111
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Because you, yourself fudged it up in your very first reset post:
HA, touché.

Quote:
You're asking me, off the bat to support an idea that I never even presented previously.
I'm sure you understand that agreeing with A is not the same as bringing up A.

Quote:
It absolutely is under discussion because it is one of the primary sources of evidence for whether or not A-E is strong.
It could sway a close election even if it was weak. It's irrelevant.

Quote:
you've never provided any evidence whatsoever that A-E is not strong
I'm not providing evidence that said sentiment is not strong because it's not a claim I've made. I'm explaining why the evidence presented for why it's strong is flawed. Do you understand the difference?

Quote:
I am supporting my position, not the one you invented for me (that's rather rude of you, I might add). My position: Simply that A-E sentiments are strong at this point in time.
I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS YOUR POSITION. Get that through your skull. That is the idea, brought up by Kelly, and that I am challenging. You butted in the conversation but for some ******* reason you want to discuss something else entirely. Why? Were you just looking for a fight? I offered a way to tone things down and start over and despite your initial agreement you flew off the handle as soon as we got started again. Seems like a discussion isn't what you're looking for.

Quote:
You dismiss the evidence of the 70% poll. You dismiss the evidence of Trump winning the GOP nomination. You dismiss the evidence of Sanders competing far more effectively against Clinton than initially expected. You dismiss the evidence of Trump winning the electoral college. You dismiss the evidence of the Tea Party wave of 2010. You dismiss the evidence of the Blue wave of 2018.
First of all, dismissing and ignoring are not the same thing. Second, I've only dismissed some of those, and I've explained why in each case. Third, your contention that Sanders competed more effectively is not evidence; it's your opinion. Fourth, Trump winning the EC is entirely irrelevant to the discussion as I've explained time and time again. In short you are the one ignoring my own points.

Quote:
Furthermore, you provide absolutely no evidence that A-E sentiments are not strong
Not my claim. Why you expect me to support a claim I haven't made is beyond me, but given your accusations of strawman that's quite ironic.
__________________
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 10th September 2019, 06:18 AM   #112
Cabbage
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,609
........(sigh)..........


Belz..., I've been clear from the beginning that my claim was simply that A-E sentiment was strong. I said in my very first post that I had a feeling we may be discussing different aspects....That was a specific invitation for you to state clearly what your position was to shortcut a long exchange where neither one of us is even focusing on the same issue.
Instead, you've been debating against me that A-E sentiment was strong, yet you're still confused and instead insist on trying to shift the debate back to whether or not the Trump vote was overwhelmingly A-E, which I never claimed at all.

Your confusion has made this is a complete waste of time.
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 10th September 2019, 06:24 AM   #113
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Belz..., I've been clear from the beginning that my claim was simply that A-E sentiment was strong.
I don't disagree with that, Cabbage. I'm asking "how strong?". I disagree with A) Kelly's claim about votes for Trump being votes for anti-establishment essentially automatically and B) the 70% figure quoted from the poll. That's it.

Quote:
Your confusion has made this is a complete waste of time.
That's rich, given how much time and energy I had to put at clearing up your own confusion.
__________________
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 10th September 2019, 08:05 AM   #114
Cabbage
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,609
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I don't disagree with that, Cabbage. I'm asking "how strong?". I disagree with A) Kelly's claim about votes for Trump being votes for anti-establishment essentially automatically and B) the 70% figure quoted from the poll. That's it.
I'm not contesting A, so please stop bringing it up with me. This isn't the first time I've had to tell you that; the confusion is yours, not mine.

Why do you disagree with the 70% poll? Let's focus on that only, for a change; after all, that's been my position from the start. For probably the dozenth time: What evidence do you have contesting the 70% poll. You've never provided any counter-evidence.

As for "How strong?". What metric are we using? The metric used by the 70% poll is sufficient for my position. Results of various elections over the past ~10 years support it, too. And again, you've never provided any counter-evidence for any of that.

Quote:
That's rich, given how much time and energy I had to put at clearing up your own confusion.
It's not my confusion when you are the one bringing up the Trump vote being overwhelmingly A-E. I never said that and I never contested it one way or the other.
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 10th September 2019, 08:16 AM   #115
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I'm not contesting A, so please stop bringing it up with me.
I bring it up because that was the discussion I was having before you entered the fray. I don't know why it's hard for you to understand that. If you don't want to participate in a discussion, don't step into it.

Quote:
This isn't the first time I've had to tell you that; the confusion is yours, not mine.
It isn't confusion. It's what I was actually discussing before you pitched in.

Quote:
Why do you disagree with the 70% poll? Let's focus on that only, for a change; after all, that's been my position from the start. For probably the dozenth time: What evidence do you have contesting the 70% poll. You've never provided any counter-evidence.
I addressed it numerous times. You keep saying that, that I never did this or that, and often that's not even true. And considering how many times I've told you this, you can't pretend not to know. In other words, you are lying.
__________________
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 10th September 2019, 08:29 AM   #116
Cabbage
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,609
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I bring it up because that was the discussion I was having before you entered the fray. I don't know why it's hard for you to understand that. If you don't want to participate in a discussion, don't step into it.
You said you disagreed with the 70% poll. I continue to challenge you on that. Is it too much to ask we restrict our particular debate to that 70% poll? Why debate something we agree on, like the Trump vote wasn't overwhelmingly A-E? I agree with you. Let's (finally) move on.

Or are you incapable of having two different discussions at the same time?



Quote:
It isn't confusion. It's what I was actually discussing before you pitched in.
It's your confusion because I simply wanted to challenge your disagreement on the 70%. I specifically told you this. Don't give me all the baggage that was involved previously because I agree with you on the Trump vote. Drop it with me already. If you can find someone else that wants you to debate that particular point, fantastic!



Quote:
I addressed it numerous times. You keep saying that, that I never did this or that, and often that's not even true. And considering how many times I've told you this, you can't pretend not to know. In other words, you are lying.
I disagree. I'm not lying. Prove me wrong: Give me one single example of you providing legitimate evidence contradicting the 70% poll.


I'll shoot it down again.
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 10th September 2019, 08:36 AM   #117
Cabbage
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,609
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
We're still tangentially on topic. We're trying to determine whether anti-establishment candidates, or moderates, or extremes, are more likely to win, or not.
........(sigh)................


That has never been my position.

Again: My position: There are strong A-E sentiments present in America today as reflected by the 70% poll. Sure, this is somewhat reflected in elections, but it's not perfectly mirrored by election results. It is but one factor out of many. The presence of other factors does not contradict the 70% poll

I feel like I'm debating with a brick wall incapable of comprehension.
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 10th September 2019, 08:51 AM   #118
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
You said you disagreed with the 70% poll. I continue to challenge you on that. Is it too much to ask we restrict our particular debate to that 70% poll?
We've already discussed it to death. We can't agree on it.

Quote:
Give me one single example of you providing legitimate evidence contradicting the 70% poll.
Thanks for preemptively telling me you'll dismiss any example I give as not legitimate.

Quote:
That has never been my position.
That was the whole reason for the conversation to begin with!

Quote:
I feel like I'm debating with a brick wall incapable of comprehension.
When reason fails, use insults.
__________________
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 10th September 2019, 09:08 AM   #119
Cabbage
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,609
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
We've already discussed it to death. We can't agree on it.
Simply because you refuse to listen to what I am trying to teach you.



Quote:
Thanks for preemptively telling me you'll dismiss any example I give as not legitimate.
No, I mean objectively legitimate. You have yet to do that. Often you simply resort to excuses, without even trying. You know, like you're doing presently.



Quote:
That was the whole reason for the conversation to begin with!
Not the part I engaged you on.



Quote:
When reason fails, use insults.
They're appropriate. I have repeatedly shot down your "counter-evidence", yet you continue to present it as if you think it's relevant.

It's not. Much like a brick wall, you seem incapable of learning when you are wrong.

Actually brick walls are even better....at least they're never wrong to begin with.
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 10th September 2019, 09:17 AM   #120
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,850
On the topic of the 70% poll:

Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
You rejected that data because it conflicts with the fact that Clinton won the popular vote, yes?
Or am I misunderstanding you?
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I rejected the poll bacause a much more reliable set of data contradicts it.
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
The set of data being "the fact that Clinton won the popular vote", or______???
Originally Posted by Belz
Interesting way to word it. She had more votes.
In other words, yes, you reject the 70% poll because you consider the the fact that Clinton got the most votes and thus won the popular vote better data. But just answering "yes" is too difficult, so we get this weird tap dance.

Originally Posted by Cabbage
You said you disagreed with the 70% poll. I continue to challenge you on that. Is it too much to ask we restrict our particular debate to that 70% poll?
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
We've already discussed it to death. We can't agree on it.
Tap dancing is not discussing, much less discussing something to death.

What is/are the point(s) of disagreement about the 70% poll?
__________________
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
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 01:27 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.