Peter Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Michael wrote: Look at the individual above facing down the mob. All he's talking about is his wish to pursue his own interests and work to achieve them. Earn them. end quote What a heroic man. How he kept his cool during that verbal assault is inspiring. I heard that Bernie did not sanction the illegal activities of the people holding Sander’s signs at Trump’s cancelled rally. It was a ruse to involve Sander’s supporters and Old Hickory knows it – I saw in her face around that time at a rally when she talked about Donald Trump’s tough talk. They were manipulated though the MoveOn organization though the protesters might be supportive of Sander’s or Clinton. But they are Stormtroopers for Old Hickory Clinton. I saw Ted Cruz saying Donald creates a toxic atmosphere. I think he is taking the wrong tack though it is incendiary to advocate from the podium at your own rally, punching a protester in the face. Beyond that angry, hypothetical Trump - ian desire IT IS the violent protesters who are initiating violence not the possible, future American President, The One and Only . . . Donald Trump. Let’s get ready to rumbleeeeee. The violent protesters are in the wrong to stifle a political candidate and Cruz should understand that. Ed Rollin’s was just saying on Fox that Trump is a shoe-in. Trash talk may not be socially acceptable except in a joking fashion, but Trump is not the only offender in the nation. Consider the movie title, “Octopussy,” and other James Bond characters I blush to mention. Just kidding. Pussy Galore, Honey Rider, Kissy Suzuki, and Xenia Onnatop. Trump may be a campaigning throwback to 1802 but he is interesting. Now about how a future President should behave . . . .? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 2 hours ago, Peter said: Objectivism does not permit any variant of the mind-body dichotomy, any split between theory and practice, between one's convictions and one's actions. Ayn Rand No problem is so big or so complicated that it can't be run away from! Linus Van Pelt in the comic strip, “Peanuts.” Adam wrote: Someone’s going to get killed with these attempts to hurt Trump... end quote. I was thinking about Kandidate Kasich’s assertion that a toxic atmosphere caused disturbances and criminal activity at Trump rallies, so that, in affect Trump inadvertently does it to himself. I don’t think that is the Secret Service’s attitude. Peter Some old quotes about this apparent dichotomy. Roger Bissell wrote: So, when Bill Dwyer asks: "If murder is evil, because it violates people's rights, then why isn't a *belief* in murder evil, if it *leads to* a violation of people's rights?" -- the answer is: IF a belief in murder IN FACT leads to a violation of people's rights, then that idea/belief/sincere conviction is being ~used~ in an ~evil action~. But the belief in murder, even if held as a "sincere conviction," is not ~in itself~ evil, but ~only~ as the guiding mental framework ~by which~ one carries out an ~evil action~. If one passively values murder as one's sincere conviction, but does nothing about it, that conviction is ~not~ evil. It's not even an evil ~intention~, until one ~decides~ that one ~will~ commit murder at some point. end quote From: "Peter Reidy" <peterreidy@hotmail.com> To: atlantis@wetheliving.com Subject: Re: ATL: "Evil" ideas Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 16:29:27 PDT Barbara Branden writes that no one has taken her up on the point that "the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' can apply only to a human being with a volitional consciousness. Since ideas do not have a volitional consciousness, such concepts cannot apply to them." Aristotle did. Concepts, he observed, can apply in a primary sense to only certain kinds of objects, but secondarily, "by analogy" or "by offshoot" (his expressions), to others. "Healthy" applies primarily to living things but secondarily to foods, medicines or kinds of exercise. "Being" and "unit" apply primarily to particular things and secondarily to actions, attributes, relations, etc. "Good" is, in fact, another of his examples. Actions are good focally, but we can make perfect sense talking about a good time to do something, a good wine, etc. These are Aristotle's own examples, from the "Metaphysics" and "Nichomachean Ethics". To judge from the number of times he points this out, it seems to have been one of the insights he was proudest of. The opposite supposition, that a word used properly has only one meaning, was one of Plato's favorite arguments for the forms. This won't be enough to settle the question of whether people can be good or bad to hold certain beliefs, but it leaves open the possibility of calling ideas good or bad because of the acts they promote, just as foods are healthy or unhealthy for their effects on people who eat them. I haven't been following the discussion closely enough to know if this is what people actually are saying. Peter From: BrantUSASF@aol.com To: atlantis@wetheliving.com CC: BBfromM@aol.com Subject: Re: ATL: "Evil" ideas Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 22:10:54 EDT In a message dated 5/8/00 3:30:48 PM US Mountain Standard Time, BBfromM@aol.com writes: Unless I've missed some post, I don't think anyone has responded to my point that the concepts of "good" and "evil" can apply only to a human being with a volitional consciousness. Since ideas do not have a volitional consciousness, such concepts cannot apply to them. Barbara. end quote Then I think you missed a post a made a while back, Barbara. I stated that no ideas existed independent of human consciousness, not even unread in a book until it be read (assuming the author was dead). That from this context ideas can be good or evil only if expressed and/or acted upon, but not within the mind itself. Therefore, ideas can be evil but they need help to be so. Ideas per se? No, they cannot be good or evil, but there is no such thing as an idea per se. There always has to be a human mind attached to it, to reiterate. It is not, by the way, good form to maintain your position for adopting it means forever explaining why ideas are not good and evil (or good and bad, etc.) as your distinction in my opinion is contrived and artificial, maybe arbitrary. Anyway, we need to be able to categorize ideas as this or that and should not exclude moral categories. --Brant Ghs wrote in a letter: Now Marx was wrong -- dead wrong, so to speak -- but it is important to distinguish a person's beliefs from his intentions and actions. The fact that a mistaken belief may generate an evil outcome does not necessarily mean that the believer had that outcome as his intention. It is my opinion that Marx would have been horrified by the atrocities that were later committed in his name. Was he in some sense responsible for those atrocities nonetheless? This is a significant and difficult moral problem, one that I have not yet fully resolved in my own mind. end quotes Peter, This is an excellent can of caviar you opened up. It is great to see Barbara, Brant, Roger, Peter and Ghs combining on this subject which runs into the core of so much. Rand, as one is used to hearing of her, skipped like a mountain goat over perceived gaps between a thought, a thought-expressed and an act. It appears to me she had intense 'empathy' (in its old meaning) for a premise and predicted its causal outcome with accuracy. What a conceptual capability: to *see* any idea, its precursor and its end result, all in one swoop! It recalls too, arguing on some philosophical point with a person whom you can't seem to connect with, perhaps an 'arm's -length' theoretician who won't see the reality of a thought, and that words have meaning in actuality, and that an idea may, can or will have a consequence, somewhere and sometime. Not specifically now or for oneself, but thought and expressed often enough by many, over time it is going to happen with certainty. And that "you" are not at all distanced from it all, "the theory". "Conviction", my favourite word - and "intention" - and "action". I learn the definition of patricide. I think of one killing one's father. I think of writing a story about someone killing his father. I think of a murder in the news, of someone who killed his father. My father makes me so mad I feel like killing him! I picture him dead. And so on. Then, "I AM going to KILL my father". I can see it. Now I'm doing it. When was the evil? At some point, before even the evil action and without it, hasn't the thought itself become "evil"? (for oneself, immoral). I read a Ghs essay recently, and it also had me thinking on these lines again. How much moral responsibility does a philosopher (e.g. Marx or Kant) have for those who come later, his followers, who carried his ideas out, 'realized' them? Given that they are completely understood. By dint of one's free will, we would say, none. However, is this true? Does everybody act on a volitional consciousness, or in fact have any "conviction" of it and be always rational? Not so. Many people follow, sheep-like. .Assuming any thinker who had noble intentions for mankind and we now see the physical outcomes of his theory and thus call him "evil". Can we, when he did not recognise his own fundamental flaws? I hope this debate continues, (on another page) it is fascinating stuff. Thanks for its recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Well said Tony. I think EVERYONE has trouble saying Emmanuel Kant was the most evil man who ever existed. I don’t think he was. We don’t have minds like StarTrek’s android, Data, or even the real chess playing and problem solving super computers, Watson. It is a shame there isn’t a program in which a polemic is inserted and its logical proof or fallacy is described. Could Kant or Marx have predicted the horror they would cause with their thoughts? No. But, at a certain point in time and reality an evil man like Adolf Hitler SHOULD know of what evil he speaks. War Crime Tribunals should be used with my hypothetical logical fallacy and prediction software. Should we engineer people to have that ability? Would you want that ability? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 I just wanted to add that I do of course recognize reason and logic as great tools. But they are not sufficient. Look at history. Look at today’s culture. Can anybody look inside their own mind and see its flaws? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Tony has really got me thinking. I was getting ready to do something, stopped and walked back to my computer. Reason. Logic. Philosophy. Is that enough? Are Objectivists always right? If ONLY they more correctly followed the tenets of Ayn Rand would they always be right? Consider this. How many Objectivists have been discredited by other Objectivists? Murray Rothbard (oh, sort of, once,) Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, David Kelley, and now Leonard Peikoff occasionally gets the semi and official scorn. How many others? Reason, logic, philosophy is an A-2 combo but what is missing to make a more perfect species? What special sauce? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 I don't know how credible spin-wise this is since it is from a conservative activist blog, but it's well worth keeping an eye on. BREAKING – Trump Ohio Attacker, Tommy DiMassimo, Connected To ISIS – Suspect Featured In ISIS Propaganda Videos 2015… by sundance March 12, 2016 The Last Refuge blog From the article: sundance said: The attacker was identified as Tommy DiMassimo. A student of Wright University in Dayton Ohio, Tom Dimassimo is a progressive leftist thug... . . . However, shocking new video has now surfaced of Tommy DiMassimo also participating in ISIS propaganda videos, and possibly being a part of their anti-U.S. agenda. This video was uploaded in May 2015. You can see DiMassimo is the principal subject within the video which begins with him dragging a flag and talking to the camera operator... The link to the YouTube video has conveniently been set to private since this article (see here). There is more interesting and creepy stuff about DiMassimo in that article, too. Let's see where this goes... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeyfoot Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 I understand getting pumped up for a performance. I wondered about the health of the 69 yr old. User Actions Follow Donald J. TrumpVerified account@realDonaldTrump "As a presidential candidate, I have instructed my long-time doctor to issue, within two weeks, a full medical report-it will show perfection." Nooooo doubt. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/images/uploads/Health_Record.pdf Harold Borenstein, (Trump personal physician) and given to Trumpisms. ) "If elected, Mr Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual EVER elected to the presidency." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Creepy, Michael. edit. No Michael is not creepy, and don't call me Surely. Trump will have Old Hickory Clinton's brown shirts, black activists, and now Isis to contend with. Good morning Sherman. Step into the Way-Back Machine with me. We will go back and look at Hillary’s first attack commercial aimed at a Republican during the 2016 political campaign. It features double stuff, Oreo, yellowish vanilla cookies, a really big desk, and Peyton and Eli Manning negotiating with the one and only Donald Trump in 2009. Do you remember? A look alike Trump comes out of the wall. Now we have Hillary shamelessly scarfing film up from the old internet and producing an ad that says, “Trump, 2016.” But the Oreo cookie is an all white cookie with white filling, implying Trump’s criticism of Oreo moving to Mexico and his push for jobs are just a push for jobs for white people! Oh, the noive! Wait Sherman, here's another news flash from UPItty news. The Pope is lending the Donald his bullet proof Pope-mobile. The Secret Service is creating a plexiglass dais for his next rally and . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 More videos on Real Clear Politics: Attempted Attack On Donald Trump Was Far Worse Than It Originally Looked Here's the main one: Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Here's the sequence of the guy trying to attack Trump in Dayton up to when the Secret Service grabbed him. (Sorry for the different zoom sizing in the screenshots. I'm not fully skilled at this yet. At least the differences are tiny.) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 To get back to the positive, here's something for my inner groupie. Skippin over the religious stuff, if I even become a public speaker, I want this guy to introduce me. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: The link to the YouTube video has conveniently been set to private since this article (see here). Those idiots don't have a clue about who they are messing with. If they wanted exposure before, but later got cold feet, well... Now they've got exposure they never dreamed of. Trump himself posted their damn video. I sure hope they like the limelight--and the consequences that come with it--because there is no turning back after this. USSS did an excellent job stopping the maniac running to the stage. He has ties to ISIS. Should be in jail!Posted by Donald J. Trump on Saturday, March 12, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 The stage rush, combined with the protest yesterday, are having the opposite effect of what they intended it to be--it's not only making Trump look like the man to beat but that he has already beaten them. Having the Secret Service surround him and protect him? The videos and images look make it look like it happened to a President, not a presidential candidate. The visual association is undeniable here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Korben, When done on purpose, the technique is called "talking past the sale." It basically means showing people what their future looks like once they have bought something and are using it, but treating that future as if it were the present. When people speak of a "person of vision" or visionary, that's the main thing the person does. He just frames it in lofty sounding language. When Trump stages his pressers on stage and in front of American flags, like after big primary days, that is exactly "talking past the sale." Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Speaking of the press, did anyone notice anything odd today? Check this out. Trump bombed in Wyoming and Washington DC. Yes, there were two primary caucuses today. I don't think he even tried to get those delegates. And he bombed badly. Rubio won DC and Cruz won Wyoming. Trump came in third in both, and in low numbers at that (see here - note, this is a dynamic page so results will change over time with new primaries, but you can get all the primary results there). Trump in 3rd? Twice in one day? That's news. That's something worth spinning for Trump's enemies. Yet what has the press been talking about all day long? You guessed it. Donald Trump canceling Chicago rally. Donald Trump being attacked in Ohio. Donald Trump's opinions about these things. Trump and Trump and more Trump. I'm almost 100% certain that several OL readers did not even realize the Wyoming and Washington DC primaries were today, that is until they read this post. But they will have known all about Trump in Chicago and Ohio. Was this on purpose and designed that way by Trump or was it pure serendipity? I'm inclined to think both. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 MSK, Very interesting. Something about the video that stood out to me was how Trump got startled (his body alerting him to danger), and immediately after he went on the attack to confront the danger. Somewhere, Putin is smiling. I watched this part of the video a few times, and this isn't something faked. Trump's reaction was to go after the person going after him--and that's what our country needs--someone tough, someone strong. NOT a pussy like Obama. Back to the analysis, I also thought Trump's plane made an associative backdrop in the stage rush videos and images (it's made a nice prop so far, but in this stage rush..)--in some of the shots you couldn't make out "Trump", which helped the (president) association. I thought Trump played it very well afterward, and I'm wondering how many people are unconsciously/subconsciously making those associations we're talking about. Go Trump! "Trump, Trump, Trump" "USA, USA, USA" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Heh. Trump retweeted this. Trump says the chaos in Chicago was a planned attack. But Hillary insists it was a spontaneous reaction to an internet video.— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) March 12, 2016 Dayaamm! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Then there's this. Wow, Kasich didn't qualify to run in the state of Pennsylvania, not enough signatures. Big problem!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 13, 2016 If the word spreads, that should influence a lot of votes in Ohio. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Rubio won DC. One more sign of how scared members of the "Permanent Political Class" are of Trump. I consider their fear a strong advertisement for Trump. Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Updated Delegate Totals ... I don't understand the shitty results from Wyoming and the District for Mr Trump. It seems odd and unbalanced and does not provide Magic Numbers going forward. What is the most likely explanation for the shitty results? TRUMP CRUZ RUBIO KASICH MICHIGAN (59) 36.5% 25 25.9% 17 9% 0 24.3 17 MISSISSIPPI (40) 47.3% 24 36.3% 15 5.1% 0 8.8% 0 IDAHO (32) 28.1 12 45.4% 20 16% 0 7.5% 0 HAWAII (19) 42.4% 11 32.7% 7 13.21% 0 10.6% 0 WYOMING 7.2% 1 68.3% 9 19.5% 1 -- 0 WASHINGTON (DC) 13.8% 0 12.4% 0 37.3% 10 35.5% 9 Average vote % 29.22% 36.83% 16.65% 17.34% Previous total 461 360 154 54 GRAND TOTAL 462 369 165 63 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 I'm posting a link the following article from Fortune just to be a smartass to William. I kinda like the headline. Donald Trump's Success Stumps Analytics Whiz Nate Silver I read the article and poor Nate still doesn't get it. He's measuring the wrong goddam things. And he's saying bullshit like the Republican establishment is dysfunctional and its efforts have been "too little too late" to stop Trump. Crap like that. The Republican establishment is deadly accurate in taking out targets. Also, how many more hundreds of millions of dollars (in addition to those already spent) does Mr. Silver think it needs to be "enough and in time"? I fear he will keep on being stumped by Trump's appeal all the way up to Trump's swearing in. Maybe beyond... It's a funny thing about human beings. Sometimes those little suckers just don't act right to a geek. Especially when they are led by a master marketer and producer they respect, one who loves them and knows how to show it. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 39 minutes ago, william.scherk said: What is the most likely explanation for the shitty results? William, DC is easy. Most folks in DC work in the government or work for people who are in the government (or otherwise receive money from the government). Trump is a threat to their livelihood. I don't know anything about Wyoming. When I consulted the figures, though, unless I sorely misunderstood how to read them, it looks to me like under 1,000 people voted all total (see here). That's for the entire state. And this in a state that has a population of well over 550,000. In fact, it looks like under 3,000 people voted in DC and it has a population of well over 650,000. If those numbers are correct, that means GOP primary caucus participation for voters is hellishly complicated to understand and/or do there. It also indicates a predominantly horse-trading environment. In that case, maybe Trump blew off those places and didn't do jack in either. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 (edited) #TrumpLive: "Oh shut up, silly woman, said the reptile with a grin, you knew damn well I was a snake before u took me in!" Crowd: "TRUMP!" — JeffSharlet (@JeffSharlet) March 13, 2016 44 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I read the [Fortune] article and poor Nate still doesn't get it. He's measuring the wrong goddam things. And he's saying bullshit like the Republican establishment is dysfunctional No pundit on the planet predicted that Donald J. Trump, would last this long. Count data analytics whiz Nate Silver among them. Silver, founder of the FiveThirtyEight.com blog, didn’t sugar coat it Saturday. Trump’s longevity in this race is harder to explain than one-time upsets like Sanders’ win in Michigan or Gary Hart overcoming a 17-point deficit to win the 1984 New Hampshire primary. “The Trump thing is more challenging,” Silver said at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference. “I was trying to find an analogy to Trump in sports predictions.” He said it is sort of like a team starting a game after a major rule change but not being aware of the change and having to infer it as the game progressed. Quote and its efforts have been "too little too late" to stop Trump. Silver’s team’s early thinking on Trump was guided by three themes. First [...] Second, there was a theory that he was a factional candidate with a small base of ardent supporters in the vein of Pat Buchanon, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul. Such candidates typically garner 20% to 30% support, but stall there. And finally, there was a strong feeling that the Republican establishment would stop Trump before he got far. That assumption turned out to be “mostly wrong,” Silver said. “But that wasn’t becuase the party didn’t try to stop Trump but that it was too disorganized to do anything much at all in the early going. The fact that there were 17 candidates to begin with showed how dysfunctional the Republican party has become, he noted. So what now? Trump needs 1,247 delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot; he has 459; Ted Cruz has 352, and Marco Rubio 152. Silver said that leaves “a fairly good chance” that Trump won’t get the requisite delegates to clinch the nomination before the convention kicks off July 18 in Cleveland. Quote Crap like that. The Republican establishment is deadly accurate in taking out targets. Says who? Quote Also, how many more hundreds of millions of dollars (in addition to those already spent) does Mr. Silver think it needs to be "enough and in time"? “If the first ballot is not conclusive, most delegates are released and many of them are not Trump fans. They probably more like Mitt Romney than Donald Trump.” At that point there will be a fine line between order and chaos, Silver warned. There could be lots of litigation and credential challenges. Quote I fear he will keep on being stumped by Trump's appeal all the way up to Trump's swearing in. Maybe beyond... He is as much stumped by Trump's appeal as you are, Michael, in my opinion. I believe you add too much spin to the 538 gang. Your reading of Barb Darrow's article quoting Nate Silver was quite unlike mine, and I think I know why. In any case, you are mixing in your desires (for a Trump victory in November) with your desires for frustrating an enemy ( GOP party vested and bought interests opposing Trump) with your desires to give a basic lesson in how stupid and ignorant and wrong someone is (here, Nate Silver, lately Roger Bissell). At least, that is the way I see it. SIlver is a wonk, not a power-player. I think you mistake his influence and reputation as something driven by animus, hyper-partisan bias, and a all-round malevolent influence on right-thinking people. This is where I sigh and wonder how come you get your categories so categorical. Hate Haters and You People. Trump supporter at rally yells "Go to Auschwitz. Go to fucking Auschwitz." It's my Twitter mentions in real life.pic.twitter.com/s7uCSjicEt — Yair Rosenberg (@Yair_Rosenberg) March 13, 2016 Edited March 13, 2016 by william.scherk Added inflammatory tweet; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 26 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: William, DC is easy. Most folks in DC work in the government or work for people who are in the government (or otherwise receive money from the government). Trump is a threat to their livelihood. I don't know anything about Wyoming. When I consulted the figures, though, unless I sorely misunderstood how to read them, it looks to me like under 1,000 people voted all total (see here). That's for the entire state. And this in a state that has a population of well over 550,000. In fact, it looks like under 3,000 people voted in DC and it has a population of well over 650,000. If those numbers are correct, that means GOP primary caucus participation for voters is hellishly complicated to understand and/or do there. It also indicates a predominantly horse-trading environment. In that case, maybe Trump blew off those places and didn't do jack in either. Michael Quote I. Population, 18 years and older, 2014 Total: 480,385 Men: 219,386 (45.7% of total) Women: 260,999 (54.3% of total) DC Population Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 1 minute ago, william.scherk said: He is as much stumped by Trump's appeal as you are, Michael, in my opinion. William, Are you serious? You think I'm stumped by Trump's appeal? Heh. I humbly suggest you haven't been paying much attention to this thread since July. Either that or you really need to brush up on your reading skills. I have been explaining Trump's appeal over and over for months. I even said I have a collection of boneheaded mainstream press explanations for his appeal that range from Hillary plant to authoritarian psyche. All bullshit. And all with failed predictions of an immediate failed Trump campaign. If it were one prediction or other, OK. But there has been nonstop wrong predictions (by ALL of these authors) since July and correct predictions (by me) during the same period. If I'm not mistaken, I even said Silver is measuring the wrong things. Yes. I just looked. I did say that. In the very post you quoted. So what could Silver measure that he doesn't? Here is a very easy parameter (among many). It would give him quite good predictive results. It can be expressed by the question: Do you receive government money? If the person does, it is less likely he or she will support Trump. If the person doesn't, it is more likely he or she will support Trump. Simple and accurate. And that's just one parameter. But Nate Silver ain't gonna do that. You wanna know why? Because he receives government money. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now