North Korea threatens to withdraw from summit with Trump

[Belsnickel]

(05-16-2018, 07:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you're saying I'm wrong.

I have pointed out numerous times how your conclusion is irrelevant and falls into a common fallacy.

One of you are not "more wrong" than the other; You are both wrong in your conclusions.

Neither has a stronger correlation.

But enough, My apologies to Zona. 

There is quantifiable proof that the popular vote has a stronger correlation to public opinion than the EC results. Maybe I was wrong about how much understanding of statistics was needed to comprehend this.

[Bengalzona]

(05-16-2018, 11:18 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The housing bubble hit because people could use stated income.   Then we also had issues in the refinancing area as well, a lot of refi to adjustable rates.  Plus appraisers also played into this as well.  

That being said we could have gotten out of it quicker had people been allowed to assume mortgages.  

I just wished we rebooted to renew regulations every ten years to ensure they are working as intended.  If they aren’t they can scrap them and write new ones.  If they are no longer necessary then they can lapse.  

But none of this is hardly pertinent to NK.

Housing bubble was because lending institutions found ways around long-standing regulations which had protected the banks and consumers by introducing new investment products such as derivatives, etc. and by reducing qualification requirements for housing loans.

Hard to be successful trying something new when you completely ignore the lessons of the past. As Paul Harvey once said, "Mozart couldn't have created the genius works he did without knowing about Bach's music."

That's how this plays into North Korea, where we are 'trying something new'.

[GMDino]

(05-15-2018, 11:46 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Regulatory cuts is pretty massive.  Unleashing ICE is very popular.  Rolling back the obama years is also pretty cool.  All that’s left is tearing up Michelle’s organic garden lol.

(05-16-2018, 11:24 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yeah your list is not as supported as you think.  We had an election proving that fact.

(05-16-2018, 02:50 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The one where trump was elected for running against almost everything you listed.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-16-2018, 03:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: People should really stop embarrassing themselves by pointing to popular vote. It is not how we elect a President in the United States of America and therefore the point is moot. No one in the forum knows how the popular vote would have turned out if that was the standard before the election, not one that many have chosen to employ after the election.

President Trump won the election in large part because of the policies he supports. It's OK to be mad about it; just stop embarrassing yourselves, by continually saying..."but he lost in a system we don't use"

Exactly. I was typing almost the same response.

It’s a joke

[StLucieBengal]

(05-16-2018, 06:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hey Lucie, electoral college does not measure public opinion. 

GOP controlling all branches behind the wave of a Trump election says a lot about where the public stood.

There was a lightning rod for the elevtion and it was Trump and his policies.

Too many popular vote stooges around here.

[Dill]

(05-16-2018, 11:36 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: GOP controlling all branches behind the wave of a Trump election says a lot about where the public stood.  

There was a lightning rod for the elevtion and it was Trump and his policies.

Too many popular vote stooges around here.

Says as much about gerrymandering as anything.

What will the 2018 elections say about where the public stands?

[Bengalzona]

(05-16-2018, 11:10 PM)GMDino Wrote:

In fairness, he has accomplished some of these.

For example, he did have a plan to defeat ISIS: let the Russians bomb ISIS AND all other rebels in Syria to hell and let Assad gas his former peasants into oblivion. See! Problem solved!

And you are misreading the third one. That is supposed to read, "I'll be too busy working, for YOU to take vacations!". And I suspect you will find that people are taking less vacations. Well, middle class people anyway. Rich peoples' lives seem to be just one big vacation anyway.

Also, I think the jury is still out on the wall as I believe the Mexicans are still considering building one on their side to keep us out.

[hollodero]

(05-16-2018, 07:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you're saying I'm wrong.

I have pointed out numerous times how your conclusion is irrelevant and falls into a common fallacy.

One of you are not "more wrong" than the other; You are both wrong in your conclusions.

Neither has a stronger correlation.

But it doesn't fall into that common fallacy. He uses a simple fact - 3 million more people voted for candidate A then candidate B - and concluded that in its entirety, the policies of candidate A were more popular than the policies of candidate B at that point, the margin being 3 million people. I do not see any fallacy in that rather logical conclusion.

He didn't use it to say Trump is an illegitimate president or that the loss isn't a loss or anything of that sort. Which, yeah, would be embarrassing.

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2018, 07:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have pointed out numerous times how your conclusion is irrelevant and falls into a common fallacy.

I am sorry.  I must have missed this.

All I have seen you repeat over and over again is that the electoral college controls who gets elected president.  We all agree with you on that.

But what is this "common fallacy" you speak of.  How is a popular vote not more indicative of public opinion that the electoral college?

The electoral college is flawed because it gives much more weight to votes from one district than it does to votes in another district.  We all agree that Trump won the electoral college vote.  But Lucie was wrong to claim that public opinion was accurately measured by the electoral college results.

Popular vote may not be 100% accurate in determining "public opinion" but the corellation is much higher than the electoral vote because of the "weighted" system that it uses to award delgates.

[GMDino]

(05-17-2018, 09:12 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am sorry.  I must have missed this.

All I have seen you repeat over and over again is that the electoral college controls who gets elected president.  We all agree with you on that.

But what is this "common fallacy" you speak of.  How is a popular vote not more indicative of public opinion that the electoral college?

The electoral college is flawed because it gives much more weight to votes from one district than it does to votes in another district.  We all agree that Trump won the electoral college vote.  But Lucie was wrong to claim that public opinion was accurately measured by the electoral college results.

Popular vote may not be 100% accurate in determining "public opinion" but the corellation is much higher than the electoral vote because of the "weighted" system that it uses to award delgates.

I'd add that the EC is usually touted by conservatives because "it isn't fair" that California tends to vote more for liberals and conservatives don't want those votes to carry more weight than votes from less populate, conservative leaning states. 

[*PhilHos*]

(05-17-2018, 05:46 AM)hollodero Wrote: But it doesn't fall into that common fallacy. He uses a simple fact - 3 million more people voted for candidate A then candidate B - and concluded that in its entirety, the policies of candidate A were more popular than the policies of candidate B at that point, the margin being 3 million people. I do not see any fallacy in that rather logical conclusion.

While I agree that using the popular vote over the electoral college vote is preferrable to try to judge the voting population's opinion of candidate's policies, the problem with using the popular vote is that many voters vote for reasons OTHER than how they view a candidate's policies. Many voters voted for Clinton because of their intense dislike of Trump and how they viewed him as a person (and vice versa) and many voted for Clinton simply because she was a woman (and, I'm sure vice versa as well).

[Millhouse]

If I may chime in on this popular vote topic.

If the Prez elections were based on popular vote, we DO NOT know how the last election would have turned out. We cannot simply just look at the numbers of that election because they are simply skewed from a political science perspective.

The reason why they are skewed is because the campaigns of both parties objective was to target for electoral wins, which is a big difference of campaign strategy instead of aiming for the popular vote.

Now how much difference there would be instead, its near impossible to tell. Maybe not much at all for all I know. But the point is that the campaigns would have been ran differently if the election was a popular vote, hence the numbers would have varied.

[*bfine32*]

(05-17-2018, 05:46 AM)hollodero Wrote: But it doesn't fall into that common fallacy. He uses a simple fact - 3 million more people voted for candidate A then candidate B - and concluded that in its entirety, the policies of candidate A were more popular than the policies of candidate B at that point, the margin being 3 million people. I do not see any fallacy in that rather logical conclusion.

He didn't use it to say Trump is an illegitimate president or that the loss isn't a loss or anything of that sort. Which, yeah, would be embarrassing.

The fallacy is taking a result from a practice, in which, that result it moot. I've given a couple examples on how folks knowing how the EC works can sway the popular vote.

I'll ask you the same question: What would the popular vote have been if the Candidates had campaigned and Americans voted knowing that Popular vote is how we elect POTUS?

If yours or anyone else's answer to that is "I don't know". Then you have just confirmed the irrelevant conclusion. 

[GMDino]

(05-17-2018, 03:19 PM)Millhouse Wrote: If I may chime in on this popular vote topic.

If the Prez elections were based on popular vote, we DO NOT know how the last election would have turned out. We cannot simply just look at the numbers of that election because they are simply skewed from a political science perspective.

The reason why they are skewed is because the campaigns of both parties objective was to target for electoral wins, which is a big difference  of campaign strategy instead of aiming for the popular vote.

Now how much difference there would be instead, its near impossible to tell. Maybe not much at all for all I know. But the point is that the campaigns would have been ran differently if the election was a popular vote, hence the numbers would have varied.

Agreed that we do not know what it would have been...but we do know what it was.  

3 million more people voted for Clinton than Trump.

Take for what it's worth...but the initial point was "winning" the election "proved" a "majority" wanted Trump and his policies.  And he didn't get the majority of the votes.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-16-2018, 11:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Says as much about gerrymandering as anything.

What will the 2018 elections say about where the public stands?

Not quite sure you are going to be happy where that ends up. Dems do not have a clear message of Anything. Those races are tightening. For instance Ben Nelson was looking good Down here until Rick Scott jumped into the race.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-17-2018, 03:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: Agreed that we do not know what it would have been...but we do know what it was.  

3 million more people voted for Clinton than Trump.

Take for what it's worth...but the initial point was "winning" the election "proved" a "majority" wanted Trump and his policies.  And he didn't get the majority of the votes.

The GOP swept all branches under the Trump agenda. So yes he and his agenda were the catalyst.

[hollodero]

(05-17-2018, 03:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The fallacy is taking a result from a practice, in which, that result it moot. I've given a couple examples on how folks knowing how the EC works can sway the popular vote.

I'll ask you the same question: What would the popular vote have been if the Candidates had campaigned and Americans voted knowing that Popular vote is how we elect POTUS?

If yours or anyone else's answer to that is "I don't know". Then you have just confirmed the irrelevant conclusion. 

There's no disagreement on these things. I get that, would the president be elected another way, Trump would have campaigned differently and might or might not have won the popular vote. I think everyone more or less gets that point.

Just, the way it went, 3 million more people voted for Hillary, hence she was more popular on election day. That's just not a wrong statement. The reason why, if it's due to campaigning, the existance of the EC etc. isn't part of that statement. 
But as far as measuring public opinion goes, an election is the best poll available, the highest of sample sizes etc. I don't really see the problem with that thought. At the very least, I don't find it embarrassing to make that point.

(05-17-2018, 02:59 PM)PhilHos Wrote: While I agree that using the popular vote over the electoral college vote is preferrable to try to judge the voting population's opinion of candidate's policies, the problem with using the popular vote is that many voters vote for reasons OTHER than how they view a candidate's policies. Many voters voted for Clinton because of their intense dislike of Trump and how they viewed him as a person (and vice versa) and many voted for Clinton simply because she was a woman (and, I'm sure vice versa as well).

Sure, that's true. It's not a perfect way to measure public opinion, but neither is the EC result. Regarding where the debate started, the popular vote still is a valid counter-argument to saying "the public wants Trump's policies, see election". Most polls indicate that democratic positions are more popular overall, even when there might be exceptions like immigration policy. Trump's election win doesn't disprove that point.

[Bengalzona]

I don't know, but if I voted for Trump, I think I'd be a little concerned that three million more people liked Hillary (of all people) better!

[Belsnickel]

(05-17-2018, 02:59 PM)PhilHos Wrote: While I agree that using the popular vote over the electoral college vote is preferrable to try to judge the voting population's opinion of candidate's policies, the problem with using the popular vote is that many voters vote for reasons OTHER than how they view a candidate's policies. Many voters voted for Clinton because of their intense dislike of Trump and how they viewed him as a person (and vice versa) and many voted for Clinton simply because she was a woman (and, I'm sure vice versa as well).

(05-17-2018, 03:19 PM)Millhouse Wrote: If I may chime in on this popular vote topic.

If the Prez elections were based on popular vote, we DO NOT know how the last election would have turned out. We cannot simply just look at the numbers of that election because they are simply skewed from a political science perspective.

The reason why they are skewed is because the campaigns of both parties objective was to target for electoral wins, which is a big difference of campaign strategy instead of aiming for the popular vote.

Now how much difference there would be instead, its near impossible to tell. Maybe not much at all for all I know. But the point is that the campaigns would have been ran differently if the election was a popular vote, hence the numbers would have varied.

Both of you make valid arguments. However, as my contention from the onset was that the popular vote has a stronger correlation to public opinion than the EC results they do not invalidate my own argument. I stated that there is not a +1.0 correlation, only that it is stronger than the EC results. Which means that using the EC results from an election in which the EC winner did not win the popular vote is not a sound argument for public opinion being on the side of the EC winner.

I never even argued that the election was proof that the public had the opinions I stated they do, that information comes from polling. My only argument was what I have stated in this post.

[GMDino]

(05-17-2018, 05:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The GOP swept all branches under the Trump agenda.   So yes he and his agenda were  the catalyst.

There have not been more than a handful of Senate and House elections since "Trump's agenda" was elected...as you say.

This is the midterm election.

We've also had some of the gerrymandered states realign.  We'll see how it all plays out.

But I admire you sticking to one, basic point no matter how many times convincing evidence or outside opinions are presented.