|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Mr Hootington posted:Just popping in to say the dems are going to lose seats in 2018 They will win seats in the House but not enough to get a majority and lose seats in the Senate. The GOP will be stronger than before, but the Democrats will claim a moral victory.
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 13:02 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You can go back a few weeks in the thread and observe people arguing that it's terrible and immoral to suggest price increases are a reason to oppose deporting farm workers. facile elision, JC. which is to say: Wrong. that his source material went into further detail than he did was nice, but irrelevant. for the predictive model, arrests were used as a proxy for violent protests. only unified variable among the datasets, you see. and so, you proudly, ignorantly proclaim that a sit-in at a restaurant, for the crime of causing the financial damage of white people not being served their lunches, must have elected Richard Nixon. find something to support. it will do you a world of good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
axelord posted:They will win seats in the House but not enough to get a majority and lose seats in the Senate. "Um the Democrats actually GAINED seats so clearly this wasn't a loss  "I've never seen people so proud of silver medals when there are only two contestents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Reading clearly isn't your strong suit. He concludes the violent protests in 1968 cost the democrats 1.97 points, which would have changed the outcome of the 1968 election. You don't actually know what "statistically indistinguishable from noise" means. Literally any change in voting has the possibility of costing an election. As a result, the amount matters, because a relatively small change is unlikely to have an effect in all but the most close elections. As an example of this, see the fact that there are a million things that technically "cost Hillary the election" simply due to how close it was (i.e. pretty much anything that had an impact could be pointed to as determining the result). Basically there's a trade-off between the perceived benefit of the activism or politician in question and the chance that it might result in a lost election. The mere fact that something slightly decreases chances of winning doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
axelord posted:They will win seats in the House but not enough to get a majority and lose seats in the Senate. A moral victory would be them taking control of the House and Senate. God drat lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:facile elision, JC. which is to say: Wrong. that his source material went into further detail than he did was nice, but irrelevant. You're badly misunderstanding his procedure. He did not consider small protests, which he defined as having fewer than 10 protestors or fewer than 10 arrests. He did not define every protest with an arrest as violent. To determine which protests were violent he used the data sets I indicated above. quote:The protest treatment is a binary term that incorporates measures of distance, time and event in- tensity. The distance measure is dichotomized and takes the value one if the distance is equal to or less than 100 miles and zero otherwise. As the model relies heavily on distance between counties and protest cities, only states in the continental U.S. are included. The time measure is also a dichotomized term that takes the value one if the number of days between the date of the protest and the date of the relevant November election between 1964 and 1972 is less than 730 days and zero otherwise. e last component of the protest treatment is an intensity measure that takes the value one if the protest includes 10 or more protesters (from the Olzak and West data) or 10 or more arrests (from the Carter data) and zero otherwise. For a given county i in a given year t, if the distance, time and intensity measures are all ones, then the protest treatment is assigned a value of one. He's only considering protests that occurred in the continental US, which occurred within 730 days of a presidential election, and which had at least 10 protestors or 10 arrests. That standard is applied to both violent and nonviolent protests, its not used to differentiate violent from nonviolent protest
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Well right now Harvey is kind of a big story, so all politics chat has devolved into nonsense posting because people get tired of saying "Oh poo poo, people are dying and are totally hosed" over and over again. The Trump thread is having a "what my grandpa did in WW2" derail currently, if that tells you anything. It's hard not to just focus on the now with Harvey. It's already an unprecedented, apocalyptic disaster and it hasn't stopped. It's not over yet and it could still get a whole lot worse. We won't even know how much is left of the 4th largest city in the United States for weeks. It's sickening, it's nauseating. I'm sure in the coming weeks we'll get the usual Democratic types pushing this as Trump's Katrina but would a Democratic Presidency look anything more than marginally better than what's happening right now or what coming after? I guess it's great they might pay lip service that this is a result of climate change but what are they going to do about it? What would they do about the fact that people couldn't evacuate not only because our infrastructure can't support a mass evacuation but also because people both don't have the means to leave and can't afford to the time off of work to save their own lives? Hundreds of thousands of people will have lost everything they own as well as the meager means they had to support themselves. They will have nothing and the Democrats only offer the same plan as the Republicans, the unspoken hope that these people go off somewhere to quietly die. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
moths posted:"Almost like a militia (that we do not classify as a gang.)" But as soon as they figure out that they're opponents of capital and not the unwitting dupes of it, they'd spin up some reason to classify them as whatever they need to classify them as to justify jailing them for looking at a .22 in a gun shop once.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Literally any change in voting has the possibility of costing an election. As a result, the amount matters, because a relatively small change is unlikely to have an effect in all but the most close elections. As an example of this, see the fact that there are a million things that technically "cost Hillary the election" simply due to how close it was (i.e. pretty much anything that had an impact could be pointed to as determining the result). I don't disagree. Sometimes doing the right thing and forcefully confronting bigotry is worth it even if another strategy would have been more politically advantageous. I think that's true of the democratic strategy against Donald trump last year, as well. Like maybe they would have benefitted electorally by ignoring his crazy racism and bigotry, spending all their time talking about their economic policies instead. On the other hand, you can never be sure when you actually need every little electoral advantage to stop a disaster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
^^^ This is where ideology comes in; ultimately people are going to have to independently decide how they thing the potential harm/benefit shakes out, since you're dealing with a number of factors that are inherently unknowable, such as what the election result will be or exactly how much harm Trump will cause (or how much benefit would come from supporting a particular good policy).JeffersonClay posted:I was waiting for him to read and respond, as he suggested he might. The preliminary rebuttal he made isn't actually responsive to the study, other than in the vaguest sense that the situation in 1968 is not the same as the situation now. But that's true of every historical comparison ever made. A lot of the posts I make, including that one, aren't attempting to prove a position on my side, but are instead just explaining why the evidence you supplied isn't relevant and/or doesn't support (or deny) your case. In this case you posted a study on violence during the civil rights movement that really isn't relevant as a comparison to antifa violence. I have no proof that antifa actually helps (or proof that it doesn't cause harm), but that's not the claim I'm making. Also, more importantly, someone quoted something from the study itself that explained some really important caveats regarding the potential for limited violence to be helpful in terms of convincing politicians to pass beneficial legislation. I'm certainly not going to use that to claim that political violence definitely helps, but at the very least it weakens your interpretation of the study. Generally speaking, you seem to just assume that the mere fact you posted some sort of data/study makes your position more supported/correct by default, but this isn't the case. If the data you post doesn't support your claim, then you're just on the same level as someone who never posted any at all. And it's often the case that sufficient data to come to a reliable conclusion on an issue doesn't even exist (or that no method to accurately come to conclusions about the issue in question exists). In such cases you often have to use other types of reasoning. To use antifa as an example, you could ask yourself what the potential benefit and harm is from its existence and the likelihood and magnitude of each (which are ultimately just assumptions). The main reason I'm not against antifa is that I don't consider claims that it will "go out of control" or embolden fascists to be realistic or supported, since this hasn't really happened historically. So the potential benefit of stopping/slowing a fascist movement - even if there's only a small chance it's actually accomplishing this goal - makes it worthwhile. This isn't exactly a scientific conclusion, but it's the best I think we can really do absent better data/studies. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Generally speaking, you seem to just assume that the mere fact you posted some sort of data/study makes your position more supported/correct by default, but this isn't the case. If the data you post doesn't support your claim, then you're just on the same level as someone who never posted any at all. I'd love to have this post loving stapled to JC's monitor. By the way, Ytlaya, your posts in this thread are always logical and well thought out and amazingly you have the self discipline to continue to give this idiot the benefit of the doubt and "debate him on the merits" and so for that I applaud you. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:The list is endless. What does the average democrat do when: When did that happen?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:When did that happen? http://www.kctv5.com/story/23480333/ku-journalism-professor-underfire-for-nra-related-tweets-after-navy-shootings Technically he has not been fired yet, just put on indefinite administrative leave, which of course is the first step in firing a tenured professor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I'd love to have this post loving stapled to JC's monitor. I mean, to be fair JC has a bit of a point regarding the fact that a number of posters in this thread just kinda blindly assert things without any evidence. The problem is that he then assumes his position must be better supported simply by virtue of the fact that he values "evidence-based thinking", regardless of whether he's provided any that actually prove his position. Like, in terms of just basic "ability to think through things logically", JC is actually probably better than a significant number of other people in this thread. The problem is that even though he's better at it, he's still not really proving his points, and he's coming from a harmful place ideologically. A good analogy might be a comparison between a low-info leftist and a conservative policy wonk. The latter definitely knows more things and is going to be able to provide more data and complex arguments, but they're still overall worse and more harmful than the low-info leftist because 1. despite their knowledge/data, their reasoning is still ultimately wrong and 2. their ideology itself is harmful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:A lot of the posts I make, including that one, aren't attempting to prove a position on my side, but are instead just explaining why the evidence you supplied isn't relevant and/or doesn't support (or deny) your case. In this case you posted a study on violence during the civil rights movement that really isn't relevant as a comparison to antifa violence. I have no proof that antifa actually helps (or proof that it doesn't cause harm), but that's not the claim I'm making. Your reasoning is circular here. You reject the study about the costs of violent protest because it's not exactly analogous to our present world. And then you claim that you support antifa because there are no historical examples of antifa's style of protest failing. Like no poo poo, there's no historical data about the effects of antifa's protests because you've categorically eliminated all the historical parallels we might draw because the situations aren't identical. You don't get to claim that history is proving you right while refusing to consider any historical comparisons. Historical comparisons are never perfect analogues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
get out fascist sympathizer, you're not welcome here
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
in dems are a waste news, our minority leader outs herself as profascist scum: https://twitter.com/JackSmithIV/status/902680257567891457
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
axelord posted:They will win seats in the House but not enough to get a majority and lose seats in the Senate. The former portion of that is even debatable. Its almost assured that it'll be a net negative, the question is will it be only one house or both.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:http://www.kctv5.com/story/23480333/ku-journalism-professor-underfire-for-nra-related-tweets-after-navy-shootings Okay, so the obvious issue is that he hasn't been fired, as you asserted. The second is that his statements were a bit more inflammatory than journalistic critique, and were followed by increasingly bombastic rhetoric. He wished a pox, for sakes. I'd expect a professor that claims 'the blood of these victims is upon X' and 'a pox upon this congress!' to be censured. Sounds pretty loony.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
I see somebody set up an NRA mentions notification system so he could defend their e-honor on demand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Things I would like to know: 1. Why does everyone still feel skeptical about a Dem turnaround in 2018, despite everything Trump has done? 2. Why the hell did Pelosi condemn the Antifa, considering they're both opposed to Trump and facism? 3. Would a progressive administration taking after Bernie's policies even be able to implement them after 2020?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Things I would like to know: 1). Because the Democratic Party is rather badly disorganized and has no shot at a good Senate outcome. 2). Because she's dumb. 3). No, probably not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Things I would like to know: Your second question partially answers your first.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
1. because dems suck 2. because dems suck 3. no, because dems suck
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Things I would like to know: 1. cause the dems can't string together 2 sentences without sounding like massively out of touch idiots, and they're currently polling worse than trump 2. cause she's a massive idiot and a fascist sympathizer 3. that's beside the point. we have to move the overton window away from fascism, and pushing for the status quo but friendlier to banks isn't gonna do that
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
the current dem leadership's strategy of unflinching centrism and defending the status quo has resulted in a resurgence of fascism. we cannot afford to let these idiots keep ruining our country
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
There's also the matter of gerrymandering and voter suppression, which are both valid crises warranting discussion, but I often get the feeling these serve as fallback points for failure rather than problems that require immediate attention from the party.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
The Democrats lost the easiest election of all time, in which all they had to do was beat a ridiculous orange clown who constantly said outwardly racist and misogynist nonsense due to his increasingly obvious dementia. They outright refused to do a single god damned thing that anybody wanted, their entire platform was "hey look at what an rear end in a top hat the other guy is, we may be taking millions of dollars in bribe money and enabling a system that imprisons and enslaves you, but at least we're not him". Most importantly, they've outright refused to learn a single drat thing from the 2016 election, and have doubled down on the pathetic failures that got them here. They don't even want to win, they just need to keep the bribes coming. If the people in charge of the money in America are smart, they'll keep the donations flowing to the Democratic establishment forever regardless of how poorly they do, as long as the Democrats keep working as hard as they can to suppress and discredit anyone who tries to make any leftward political progress anywhere in the country. Why would anyone think that they had a chance at making any significant gains in 2018?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I mean, to be fair JC has a bit of a point regarding the fact that a number of posters in this thread just kinda blindly assert things without any evidence. The problem is that he then assumes his position must be better supported simply by virtue of the fact that he values "evidence-based thinking", regardless of whether he's provided any that actually prove his position. And when you point it out for him he claims you have poor reading comprehension. Every time. It doesn't help that he's doesn't have much in the way of a personal morality. I've never once read anything from him that even starts to approach something like "we should do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may". He doesn't seem to have any principles he sticks to, other than a compulsion to win internet arguments (or convince himself that he has). Don't mistake my analysis here for an assertion that he's worth engaging, by the way. He isn't. He should be shunned and ridiculed. JeffersonClay posted:Your reasoning is circular here. You reject the study about the costs of violent protest because it's not exactly analogous to our present world. And then you claim that you support antifa because there are no historical examples of antifa's style of protest failing. Like no poo poo, there's no historical data about the effects of antifa's protests because you've categorically eliminated all the historical parallels we might draw because the situations aren't identical. You don't get to claim that history is proving you right while refusing to consider any historical comparisons. Historical comparisons are never perfect analogues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
^^^ That post has nothing to do with what you're describing. Are you even capable of comprehending your own writing? If you think I'm making self-contradictory arguments, post them. You won't, because you can't. Condiv posted:1. cause the dems can't string together 2 sentences without sounding like massively out of touch idiots, and they're currently polling worse than trump Net approval from huffpo : Democrats -12 , trump -20, Republicans -23. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
 get out fascist sympathizer, you're not welcome here
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
I'm so happy JC discovered the term "self-own" and is getting such great mileage out of it!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Loading this thread is going to produce nothing but 'get out JC' and several 'Jerk detected! This user is on your ignore list, click to view post anyway' lines at this rate. Soon, the prophecy will be complete.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:46
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:^^^ You're already making a bunch of self-contradictory arguments because you can't read gud and claim nobody else can.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Condiv posted:
Hey, you're the one parroting trump's objectively false propaganda about beating the democrats in approval rating. Now that I think about it, I can't think of a piece of Trump's anti-democrat rhetoric that you're uncomfortable regurgitating. Democrats are the real racists? Check. The Russia investigation is all sour grapes from the democrats and whatabout the Clinton foundation? Check. The corrupt DNC stole the primary from Bernie? Check.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:51
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:You're already making a bunch of self-contradictory arguments because you can't read gud and claim nobody else can. Also I bet JC's response to this is going to be that I need to prove he can't Reed Gud, and then he'll fall back to "Well you're the one who can't understand my posts."
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:You're already making a bunch of self-contradictory arguments because you can't read gud and claim nobody else can. It seems like this would be easy to prove using the quote function but for some inexplicable reason you won't. You predicted I'd ask you to prove the dumb assertion you made, you're a real Nostradamus there guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Things I would like to know: 1: Because the Dems are as useful as laying on the ground and pissing into the air and into your own mouth. It doesn't help that 2018 was expected to be a big wave year for the GOP had Abuela won, tbh. 2: Because she's a fascist sympathizer in a heavily Dem region, so she wears their clothes. Move Pelosi to Oklahoma and change her registration to Republican and literally nothing would change. 3: Probably not but  at thinking one's gonna get the chance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Hey, you're the one parroting trump's objectively false propaganda about beating the democrats in approval rating. Now that I think about it, I can't think of a piece of Trump's anti-democrat rhetoric that you're uncomfortable regurgitating. Democrats are the real racists? Check. The Russia investigation is all sour grapes from the democrats and whatabout the Clinton foundation? Check. The corrupt DNC stole the primary from Bernie? Check. Where has anyone here said that the Dems are the real racists? I've seen "the Dems sometimes support racist policies, although usually less racist than the GOP, but that's a low bar to clear," but not "the REAL racists."
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 13:02 |
|
|
get out fascist sympathizer, you're not welcome here in other news, alex jones finally approves of nancy pelosi (and jc!) https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/902977649525616640
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 21:10
|
|