You didn't answer one of the questions.
edit - Here, I'll lay them out for you:
1. Who did the poll?
2. When was it done?
3. How did it compare to other polls?
4. Did something happen between the poll and the primary, like a debate or major news story?
5. How was the poll done?
6. How did they weigh certain demographics?
7. Was all this early or late in the nomination process?
Nothing you're saying makes you sound more knowledgeable. You sound like you got lucky that reality happened to confirm your bias.
Mind you, this is all just my opinion of you. If you want me to change my mind, feel free to try, but just digging in your heels and doubling down on your lack of reliance of data isn't going to do it. If you don't care about my opinion of you, then there's nothing to respond to.
3. How did it compare to other polls?
EVERY MAJOR POLL had Clinton ahead by AT LEAST 5 points. It wasn't just one poll. It was the average, it was the trend.
You sound like you got lucky that reality happened
Also, just to get back to my original statement. If you can look back at the 2016 election, with the benefit of hindsight, and STILL not see a strong Clinton polling bias then you are having a hard time being honest with yourself.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The protests merely ask that the speaker not be provided a stage by the institution, and with it the apparent approval of the institution for the speaker's words.Universities, at least the public ones, ought to be required to give the stage to anyone. The format ought to be a moderated debate though. I think bad ideas should be heard. Plainly.
And just as plainly, and at the same event in short order, ought to be handily refuted for the nonsense they are by a speaker with another POV.
So, never heard of the Gish Gallop approach to debate then?
If it's moderated, the moderator must be as knowledgeable as the participants to be able to say that's a lie. If they are, they'rte inherently biased because they know stuff. In any debate between a creationist and a biologist an "unbiased moderator" favours the creationist because their position is a load of hoey but it soudns good in short bursts, like you have at a debate. You have to actually understand the topic to know all the ways they'rwe wrong. If the moderator is independent, and knows the subject, they'll be "biased" by the side that has the more alternative fact position.If not, it's just who havs better rhetoric and politicians and especially racist ones have really good rhetoric because they have to to weasel out of the consequences of their positions.
This doesn't even begin to go into the fact that some speakers will actively put others at risk. A debate between a Neo-Nazi and a Jew will basically be "Does this guy have the right to exist or should we kill him?". Apart from the unmitigated disaster of that as a topic that should be up for debate, now the neo-nazi's followers, many of whom may not be all that committed to non violence have a brand spanking new target for actual physical harm. Who in their right mind would volunteer to be the other side of that?
Yeah, anyone who tells you coal jobs are coming back is blowing smoke up your ass!
Unless it is Obama implying 5 million new jobs in the coal industry...
Or Obama pointing out how bad NAFTA is, and promising to renegotiate it...
I wonder why people don't trust the Democrats on the economy?
Before criticizing Trump voters, the democrats need to realize that voting for Hillary would be against the interest of the working classes. It's important to remember that before insulting those voters. Actually, insulting people is generally a poor way of getting them to agree with you.
I saw Hillary supporters (led by The Party themselves) were very insulting toward people who didn't buy into their b@~&@!#$, and it should surprise no one that people didn't like that. If I have to vote for two people who are going to screw me either way, I might be inclined to choose the person who doesn't act like a pompous jerk about the whole thing.
If you are going to ask how foolish someone needs to be to vote for Trump, you also need to ask how foolish they need to be to vote for Hillary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder why people don't trust the Democrats on the economy?
Because "you're smurfed. We're facing a radical change in the economy and the lives of the worker not seen since the industrial revolution. Robots are doing the manual jobs. AIs will soon be doing the office jobs.
I don't know what's on the other side of it, but its like nothing we've had in human history, and I want to make it as good as possible" doesn't...You know what, that actually isn't half bad
*starts running for office on the post scarcity party platform*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The protests merely ask that the speaker not be provided a stage by the institution, and with it the apparent approval of the institution for the speaker's words.Universities, at least the public ones, ought to be required to give the stage to anyone. The format ought to be a moderated debate though. I think bad ideas should be heard. Plainly.
And just as plainly, and at the same event in short order, ought to be handily refuted for the nonsense they are by a speaker with another POV.
Just as soon as they are tuition free, you'll have a point. Until then I think those who are paying ten thousand or more dollars per year should have a say.
I don't wish to mis-characterize your statement.
Did you mean to say that people with/that spend the money get to dictate what speech is allowed or acceptable?
[
So, never heard of the Gish Gallop approach to debate then?
If it's moderated, the moderator must be as knowledgeable as the participants to be able to say that's a lie. If they are, they'rte inherently biased because they know stuff. In any debate between a creationist and a biologist an "unbiased moderator" favours the creationist because their position is a load of hoey but it soudns good in short bursts, like you have at a debate. You have to actually understand the topic to know all the ways they'rwe wrong. If the moderator is independent, and knows the subject, they'll be "biased" by the side that has the more alternative fact position.
If not, it's just who havs better rhetoric and politicians and especially racist ones have really good rhetoric because they have to to weasel out of the consequences of their positions.This doesn't even begin to go into the fact that some speakers will actively put others at risk. A debate between a Neo-Nazi and a Jew will basically be "Does this guy have the right to exist or should we kill him?". Apart from the unmitigated disaster of that as a topic that should be up for debate, now the neo-nazi's followers, many of whom may not be all that committed to non violence have a brand spanking new target for actual physical harm. Who in their right mind would volunteer to be the other side of that?
This...so much this. By creating a moderated debate on a subject, you are producing the appearance that each side is an equally valid position. This is probably fine for some topics, but is completely inappropriate for others. The example cited of the Gish gallop is a great example: By giving equal time to a Young Earth Creationist, you are automatically raising them up and giving the perspective that their views on evolution are equally supported, and not a fringe belief rejected by the scientific community. The same thing with the press and its long tendency to include climate denialists responses in stories about climate change.
Not to mention these debates actually seldom do any good. People invested in seeing a debate usually know enough to have already formed an opinion, and a debate performance, where fact checking by its very nature can't be really done, is not going to persuade those people who are wrong.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The chairman of Foxconn, Terry Gou, made the following statement at a press conference focused on the controversy: "We are certainly not running a sweatshop. We are confident we'll be able to stabilize the situation soon. A manufacturing team of 800,000 people is very difficult to manage." At the time of the company's press conference, the factory in which the deaths occurred employed up to 300,000 people."
And both political parties are desperately trying to set up shop in countries like Viet Nam, are doing it because Viet Nam has the best robots?
Clinton Grants China MFN, Reversing Campaign Pledge
"Clinton had been the subject of heavy lobbying by American business interests and his economic advisers to continue China's trade privileges. With China now the world's fastest growing economy, the United States exports $8 billion a year there, which sustains up to 150,000 American jobs. Many major American businesses see even greater potential in Chinese markets, expecting China to become a massive purchaser over the next decade of the phones, electronic gadgets and thousands of other products made in America."
Guess what those 800,000 people manufacture in China?
Phones, electronic gadgets and thousands of other products made in America, include BlackBerry, iPad, iPhone, iPod, Kindle, Nintendo 3DS, Nokia, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, Wii U, and Xbox One.
I call total b~&!!&*$ on this idea that robots replace American manufacturing, unless we are going to reclassify Chinese and other countries people as warforged robots.
3. How did it compare to other polls?EVERY MAJOR POLL had Clinton ahead by AT LEAST 5 points. It wasn't just one poll. It was the average, it was the trend.
Are you claiming there were two polls in Oregon?
Edit: even still, you're not actually comparing a poll to another poll. I'm calling you out on your lack of specifics. In that line, you still have no specifics.
You're making a claim to being right as you talk in vague generalities with implications of data, but no actual data. You're arriving at conclusions based on what you think is true, without actually looking at facts.
Mind you, if Trump crashes and burns as badly as I expect him to<snip>You do realize this is precisely the prognostication given the Trump campaign as it sought to gain the Republican nomination... and then said again as he sought the presidency against Hillary?
It's funny too that the Dems keep missing the bigger picture on virtually every topic. Take Trump for example. He's obviously a narcissist. He likes attention. He prefers praise but if you disagree with him that allows an occasion for a Twit-storm. Trump likes spinning off Twit-storms. It keeps his name in the press; on the Internet; on the evening news; on the talk shows.
And while everyone is talking about Trump, and/or topics that Trump wants to talk about, the more substantive issues get overlooked; fail to get press time; page views; "likes".
The Dems, along with most everyone else, are playing Trump's game. He got how much dollar-equivalent in free campaign advertisement out of this approach? He's still getting what he wants. At least mostly. And gratis at that.
Running a campaign to be elected as an outsides and running a campaign to be re-elected after election are two very different things. Trump got away with saying whatever he wanted to before, but now people are going to hold him to those promises. Granted...I am not sure 4 years is really long enough for harmful policies to be really felt by Trump's base and overall republicans (It sounds like it could be 3 years before we even see "Trumpcare" come online, for instance). So a Trump renomination may be very likely.
As far as tweets and not covering the real issues...What are the real issues you feel are not being covered? So far the Trump presidency has really only done two things: put forward nominations for cabinets, and executive orders, most of which are rather vague or toothless with the exception of the immigration order. Both topics seem pretty well covered, to the point of both things being heavily protested. There has been general bungling of media and international relations, and conflict of interest stuff...again seem fairly well covered, although also being things that the Republicans in control seem to largely be ignoring.
So what big issues are Trump and/or the Republicans backing that are getting masked by tweet noise?
So, never heard of the Gish Gallop approach to debate then?<snip>This...so much this. By creating a moderated debate on a subject, you are producing the appearance that each side is an equally valid position. This is probably fine for some topics, but is completely inappropriate for others. The example cited of the Gish gallop is a great example: By giving equal time to a Young Earth Creationist, you are automatically raising them up and giving the perspective that their views on evolution are equally supported, and not a fringe belief rejected by the scientific community. The same thing with the press and its long tendency to include climate denialists responses in stories about climate change.
Not to mention these debates actually seldom do any good. People invested in seeing a debate usually know enough to have already formed an opinion, and a debate performance, where fact checking by its very nature can't be really done, is not going to persuade those people who are wrong.
Then you debate topics they cannot "gallop" on. With a moderator who has expert knowledge on said topic.
How hard is that?
Do you have a list of controversial fringe/extreme subjects that a person can't gallop on and whose recognition as a debatable subject isn't a validation? Because I would love to see that list.
Are you implying that (for example) everything sold at Wal-Mart is made by robots? Or is it made by workers (and a few robots) overseas? If almost all that product was made in the USA, like it once was, would that involve hiring some workers or would robots just kind of do everything automatically?
The invention of the sewing machine didn't destroy the textile industry, it made it boom. Moving jobs to Mexico and China destroyed the textile industry in the US by moving it to other countries.
Technology is always replacing labor, but that is a completely different problem then moving jobs to other countries.
The protests merely ask that the speaker not be provided a stage by the institution, and with it the apparent approval of the institution for the speaker's words.Universities, at least the public ones, ought to be required to give the stage to anyone. The format ought to be a moderated debate though. I think bad ideas should be heard. Plainly.
And just as plainly, and at the same event in short order, ought to be handily refuted for the nonsense they are by a speaker with another POV.
What the hell would that even mean though? Who decides what the other side in the moderated debate is? Does this apply to everyone?
If they want to invite a famous biologist in to discuss his latest research, do we have to have a creation/evolution debate instead? Do we need to have someone from the KKK present every time any black issues are discussed?
Who decides what's controversial enough to be debated? Who decides what the other side that needs to be heard is?
Because the current situation is so much better, let's not change.
Hmmm? I think I have a new slogan for the Dems, "Let's not change!"
Oh wait, that's the current one already. :(
I legitimately do not know what subject you think we are refusing to debate...I and TheJeff were operating on the belief you were referring to recent events in Berkeley (which FYI the mods really don't want us to talk about other than in the vaguest terms). As far as I know that particular matter has zero to do with the future democrat party and any new vision for it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not a list. It's just reposting a statement of frustration. I don't think I understand you.
Just to be clear, you're not right wing but you do believe Hillary Clinton had a secret (or maybe not secret) plan to turn America into a feudal serfdom? That's your reality?Are you sure your evidence isn't just a hoax perpetrated by China?Come on, wasn't it Russia that made your candidate lose? At least get your story straight.
And, bear in mind, I had profoundly hoped that Trump end up in prison, not the White House. I'm not a right wing shill here. I'm an independent middle class American who doesn't want my daughter to grow up in a feudal serfdom run by our corporate overlords.
Turn it into? Look around you. We're knee-deep in this s*&~ right now.
You're working really hard to cherrypick what Kirth is saying and present it in the most insulting way possible. I disagree with Kirth on a lot, but right now, I'm feeling a lot more frustrated with your approach.
List?
Weird that this needs to be repeated so soon.**
These arguments that you're involved in with Irontruth, thejeff, Knight who says Meh and others, is on a moderated forum of (mostly) college educated folks. And yet communication really isn't happening because people refuse to understand what you're trying to say. Even the smarter ones on here only understand your arguments well enough to mischaracterize them and post a reply that, , are no more helpful than the screeds posted in the comments portion of YouTube videos.
And thus we see the problem inherent in the system, eh comrade?*
* You might think I would be a communist by now but no, I'm only a little more cynical.
** I kid, it's not weird at all. It's exactly what I expected.
Too bad the weather isn't this easy to predict, I could make some serious bank.
I quite literally have no idea what is even being argued. Unless Paizo.com turned into the website of a college campus, how does that have anything to do with your recent argument line.
Are you implying that (for example) everything sold at Wal-Mart is made by robots? Or is it made by workers (and a few robots) overseas?
The invention of the sewing machine didn't destroy the textile industry, it made it boom. Moving jobs to Mexico and China destroyed the textile industry in the US by moving it to other countries.
Technology is always replacing labor, but that is a completely different problem then moving jobs to other countries.
Automation is different, and comparing the current trends to the sewing machine is like comparing the dawn of nuclear weapons with the invention of crossbows.
One changed the game. The other threw away the game and went outside to...I don't have a good ending to this metaphor.
In the second decade of the 21st century, a number of studies have been released suggesting that technological unemployment may be increasing worldwide. Further increases are forecast for the years to come. While many economists and commentators still argue such fears are unfounded, as was widely accepted for most of the previous two centuries, concern over technological unemployment is growing once again. Innovations like Watson have the potential to render humans obsolete with the professional, white-collar, low-skilled, creative fields, and other "mental jobs"
I call total b$@~##!# on this idea that robots replace American manufacturing, unless we are going to reclassify Chinese and other countries people as warforged robots.
If you manufacture in america the minimum wage of a worker at 10 bucks an hour, plus health benefits, plus half their social security taxes, workers comp insurance = replace them with a robot if at all possible
If you manufacture in china, minimum chinese wage of a dollar sixty an hour, that you don't pay, hire productivity= MAYBE hire a robot if possible.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, never heard of the Gish Gallop approach to debate then?
That was the final piece of the puzzle. Kellyanne Conway is a gishyanki, planning to use the bloated astral corpse of Tr'mp'narath to fuel her transformation into lich-queen.
(Bannon is an illithid in a human flayed-fleshsuit where the gentle repose protection is failing.)
Welcome to theThat's not a list. It's just reposting a statement of frustration. I don't think I understand you.
Just to be clear, you're not right wing but you do believe Hillary Clinton had a secret (or maybe not secret) plan to turn America into a feudal serfdom? That's your reality?Are you sure your evidence isn't just a hoax perpetrated by China?Come on, wasn't it Russia that made your candidate lose? At least get your story straight.
And, bear in mind, I had profoundly hoped that Trump end up in prison, not the White House. I'm not a right wing shill here. I'm an independent middle class American who doesn't want my daughter to grow up in a feudal serfdom run by our corporate overlords.
Turn it into? Look around you. We're knee-deep in this s@@& right now.
You're working really hard to cherrypick what Kirth is saying and present it in the most insulting way possible. I disagree with Kirth on a lot, but right now, I'm feeling a lot more frustrated with your approach.
Democratic Party, er, I mean political conversations anywhere.
Well, you're kind of doing it, too, so I guess you're a Democrat.
By the way, it is not worth this thread's current level of tension when our main disagreements ("free speech" arguments aside) are mainly about methods and quality of polling. We all fundamentally want more-or-less the same goal. I can disagree with current applications of incrementalism while recognizing that at least you probably want the same general outcome—that's part of why I never hated Clinton like a lot of Bernie supporters did.
Also, Quark, it's a little bit different. Kirth was posting in-depth arguments and getting his statements cherrypicked to simplify him to an unflattering image. As far as I can tell, you posted two sentences about how you think debates should work, and people are critiquing those two sentences to the best of their ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you manufacture in america the minimum wage of a worker at 10 bucks an hour, plus health benefits, plus half their social security taxes, workers comp insurance = replace them with a robot if at all possible
If you manufacture in china, minimum chinese wage of a dollar sixty an hour, that you don't pay, hire productivity= MAYBE hire a robot if possible.
And if you just used slaves, you could skip paying any salary.
More seriously, why have labor and environmental laws at all if you are just going to allow people to skirt them by manufacturing outside the country and then sell their products in the US with no consequence?
Also, not to get all socialist, but if robots make the products, who buys them? Henry Ford figured that he could make more money if workers could afford products. A buyer is a key aspect of manufacturing in the first place...
Ah, yes, that famous argumentative technique to improve communication—insulting, ambiguous mimicry of perceived fallacies. It never fails.
More seriously, why have labor and environmental laws at all if you are just going to allow people to skirt them by manufacturing outside the country and then sell their products in the US with no consequence?
In fairness, BNW isn't endorsing the system. Someone brought up Chinese workers as proof that automation isn't an issue, and BNW explained Chinese workers don't prove much.
The main leftist argument in support of free trade is as a diplomatic tool—kinda like how Trump wants to tolerate Assad as a diplomatic tool to beat Daesh. The "necessary evil" argument. I don't agree with it, but it's important to recognize.
*sickly burned*
KC died as he lived.
Smokin'.
I call total b$@~##!# on this idea that robots replace American manufacturing, unless we are going to reclassify Chinese and other countries people as warforged robots.
If you manufacture in america the minimum wage of a worker at 10 bucks an hour, plus health benefits, plus half their social security taxes, workers comp insurance = replace them with a robot if at all possible
If you manufacture in china, minimum chinese wage of a dollar sixty an hour, that you don't pay, hire productivity= MAYBE hire a robot if possible.
Last March, Foxcomm (chinese manufacturer of the iPhone) replaced 60,000 workers with automation. Their goal is to have fully automated factories in the next couple years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main leftist argument in support of free trade is as a diplomatic tool—kinda like how Trump wants to tolerate Assad as a diplomatic tool to beat Daesh. The "necessary evil" argument. I don't agree with it, but it's important to recognize.
History shows us, engagement is more effective than non-engagement. Refusing to interact with a country has essentially zero effect. I'm willing to hear arguments for a better strategy, but I want to see evidence.
Successes: Germany, Japan, Poland, China, Russia, South Africa
Failures: North Korea, Iran, Cuba
We've successfully made North Korea and Cuba poor, but it hasn't changed their government or culture for the better. There are aspects of Cuba that are good, but they'd have been even better off if allowed to trade with the US and most likely the government would have become less extreme.
Compare that to South Africa. Yes, there was a call for boycotts, but evidence shows they weren't effective at all. It was engagement and pressure that got the government to change. Being part of the world community put pressure on them to change.
The analogy would be a friend/family member who acts like an a!%&#+@. If you cut them off from the rest of your friends/family and ostracize them, do they improve their behavior? Sometimes, but very, very rarely. Usually they just become more of an a&*@!**.
Globalization also helps lift the poor out of poverty. It encourages the spread of technology and gives people an opportunity to do work that will be the most economically advantageous to them.
I would agree that the implementation of globalization has been done in a way that benefits the rich even more, and I'd like to change that. But the answer isn't to end globalization, it's to do it better.