UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
LOL
so did your family-murdering buddy red1966.
you are not fooling anyone you sad dumb racist
It's been windy and cold.
- Thread starter kelly4
- Start date
so did your family-murdering buddy red1966.
you are not fooling anyone you sad dumb racist
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
fauxcahontas?
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
Who are your ancestors?
Go back 22 generations and you came from over 5,000,000 people.
They weren't all the same, I guarantee it.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
These days they call them libertarians.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Not a lot of those in the mix, when it gets down to it. Bottom right looks pretty thin.
The Progressives in the bottom left are another story- which is why a candidate who effectively taps into their interests could find themselves very successful indeed.
The question I invite you to ask yourself is why that hasn't happened?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
oh gawd
Another idiotic pseudo scientifc graph that has no real meaning but looks good and agrees with your beliefs so you posted it without really understanding the problems with this kind of graphic.
A breathtaking example of ignorance and how gullible some people are to give it more than a passing glance.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Oh look- yet another weak attempt to denigrate useful data describing our political landscape when it doesn't agree with your assumptions.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
The graph is based upon adding up scores from answers regarding subjective questions.
It's completely possible to add 2+2 to get a score of four and and average score of 2. That's easy.
What's idiotic about the method behind that graph is the assumption that each number represents a value on a linear scale and adding them together provides a valid result.
For instance if you ask a person how far they drive and they answer 2 miles that's all well and good.
When you ask how much gas they used and they say 8 ounces that's all well and good too.
The problem lies in adding the two together. 2 + 8 = 10 or an average of 5
10 what? 5 what?
It's the same problem with adding people's numerical scores from their responses to categorical questions rated on a subjective scale. Individual numbers are fine. The numbers obtained from adding them together are meaningless.
We've had this discussion before and you didn't understand then either.
I'm just going to say again, Oh gawd, not another pseudo-scientific and meaningless graph.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
But it fits his preconceived notions so well that it must be true. Because tty is so smart and in touch with the political pulse of the country due to his extensive homework and reflexive rejection of "what they tell us" that the numbers just make sense.
Did you even watch the fucking video!!!!!????
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Maybe I'm not the one who doesn't understand.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
You know, trumpers scream fake news! every time they see data they don't like.
It's just data. It says there are lots of right wing authoritarians and lots of Progressives. Why does that threaten you so much?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
He does this quite a bit. The shit he posts is completely driven by his pre-conceived notions. A very basic claim of "Bernie Sanders has very high approval ratings from black people", for example is touted as proof that Bernie will do well with black voters in the next election. This sounds good until one looks at what happened the last time around. Bernie had high approval ratings in 2016 from black voters yet they chose Clinton by 80% to Sanders 20%. Clinton low approval ratings from black people in 2016.
But tty keeps trotting the "approval rating' out even though it should be obvious as dirt that approval ratings don't mean squat when one is forecasting an election. Oh, and to add to the lunacy, he is doing this three years ahead of the election.
It's not just tty; Pad, sky and the universe of right wing nuts do the same. Their opinions are invulnerable to facts that prove them wrong.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
And the way they go on about logic. Good god.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Oh yes. You don't understand. This isn't something that can be debated. You don't understand. It can't be explained simpler. You are unable to understand.
I pointed out the graph was fake-sciencey-like-bs and explained that the scoring method used invalid arithmetic for the benefit of others. I didn't expect that you could understand. You've failed too many times before for me to have that expectation.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Right. We post citations and you attack then as fake news- then claim we have no support for our claims.
That's the exact tactic of a Trumper.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
There are such things as facts and that's what I stick to.
The process of adding 2 miles with 8 quarts to get the number 10 is invalid math. This is exactly the problem with that graphic you posted.
As I said before, you don't understand and you never have. This is not an attack, it is merely an accurate observation and the reporting of an inarguable fact.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
No, when you point out the inadequacies of his "sources" it is an attack. When he calls us names it is a well founded, logical argument based on lots of homework and careful watching of the videos.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
You have done nothing to investigate the validity of that graph; all you've done is advance bullshit arguments in an effort to discredit it.
Of course you're attacking it! It shows a political reality that makes you uncomfortable. Why? What's wrong with a strongly Progressive voting population? They believe in the same things you claim to. They're just as frustrated with inaction as you are.
What are you so afraid of that you would spend so much time and effort attacking the best candidate to represent so many of the economic positions you say you support?